Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #392061 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 416 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Normal Human <NH@....> - 2016-09-12 08:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 15:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-11 16:28 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-12 00:06 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:31 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 12:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 05:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 08:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 14:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 19:18 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 12:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 22:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 22:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 06:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 23:56 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 22:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 20:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 01:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-15 11:29 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 20:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:34 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 20:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 19:05 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 10:25 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 11:54 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:55 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:29 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 09:59 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 20:56 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:12 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 19:14 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 10:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 09:28 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-22 00:12 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 03:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 02:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 14:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 05:55 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 19:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 17:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 06:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-25 22:40 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 17:56 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 23:09 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:02 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 10:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 03:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 20:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 04:48 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-29 10:07 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-29 08:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:06 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 05:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-27 20:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 01:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 23:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 15:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 00:03 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 15:48 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 23:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:50 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 22:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 14:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:08 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:53 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 17:27 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-20 09:40 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:05 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:51 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:14 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 23:38 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 21:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 16:22 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 08:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 23:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:38 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:11 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-22 22:25 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:36 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:20 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 09:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 04:29 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:20 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-23 16:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 15:05 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-24 16:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 05:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 15:50 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-22 18:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 11:26 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:51 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 09:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-23 03:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:08 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-24 12:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-24 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 11:59 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-25 13:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-23 12:52 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 10:46 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 04:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 23:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-27 10:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 09:30 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 21:47 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-17 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 18:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:57 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:20 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 20:06 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:22 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 23:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 00:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 12:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 05:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:13 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-09-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-22 11:04 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 14:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 20:26 -0500
To A Atheism The Science Of Language Is Rrelativity "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-19 15:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:21 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:05 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 18:59 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-19 17:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 12:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-13 07:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 18:03 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 21:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 06:27 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 02:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:14 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 06:44 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 07:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 15:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-15 19:37 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-14 01:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 19:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 14:43 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 23:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:40 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-16 18:57 -0500
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:15 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:33 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:37 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:05 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 14:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 12:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 09:10 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-13 17:21 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 03:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 20:33 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:09 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 20:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-14 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 21:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:32 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 17:38 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:32 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 23:15 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 18:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 22:48 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-09-15 15:02 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-16 01:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 23:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-18 13:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 21:01 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 17:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 21:38 -0700
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-19 23:37 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 23:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 18:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 15:14 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-20 13:46 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 20:46 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:45 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 17:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 21:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 01:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 16:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 19:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 06:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 20:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 15:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-30 06:33 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-29 23:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 02:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 02:54 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-30 02:06 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-30 14:07 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-01 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-01 05:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 07:39 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-02 02:24 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 11:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-02 09:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 18:02 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-02 11:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:52 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-10-09 00:09 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Hello Thomas <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 07:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 07:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-10-08 12:36 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 22:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-10-08 15:33 -0600
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-10-09 00:14 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 11:48 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 12:54 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 12:47 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 20:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:41 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:36 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 22:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-18 06:35 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-18 07:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-18 06:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:46 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:53 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:43 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 01:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:21 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 20:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 04:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 05:03 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:42 +0000
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:17 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:25 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 22:06 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:36 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 13:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 16:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-25 11:04 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 09:59 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 07:35 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:27 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-27 06:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 12:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:14 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 00:39 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 14:07 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 13:09 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:50 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 17:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 02:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:47 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 05:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:12 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 19:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400
Page 4 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 21 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 02:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1302d450-7f9e-4979-8eb8-907f761f7cca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393307 |
W dniu czwartek, 22 września 2016 10:17:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Alex W. napisał: > We have to accept that we cannot ever solve all problems everywhere. Wrong. Things should be exactly as they are: with some accepting it and some not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 10:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okp7ubpqnp72lcfa37npuvoesmtn1b5ods@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393307 |
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:17:02 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4hic0FtafoU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >On 22/09/2016 17:50, Attila wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:28:47 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <e4gjdjFmqmcU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >> >>> On 22/09/2016 00:37, Attila wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:14:08 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in >>>> alt.atheism with message-id <e4f1b6Fav71U1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note also that these days, most nations have signed up to a raft of >>>>>>>>> international laws, treaties and agreements (Geneva Conventions on >>>>>>>>> Warfare, the Human Rights Conventions etc). This puts them squarely >>>>>>>>> under the rule of law (both national and international) with all its >>>>>>>>> attendant range of means of enforcement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Enforcement? By who? The UN has no enforcement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By obliging signatory nations to take action. >>>>>> >>>>>> If they choose to do so. >>>>> >>>>> Depending on the specific terms of the treaties and agreements which >>>>> they ratified, yes. >>>> >>>> In any case. If a country ignores the 'action' just who is going to >>>> force them to comply? >>> >>> Force them? Nobody. But usually, fellow nations will exert diplomatic >>> and political pressure to do so. Everybody in the street mows their >>> front lawn but you, nobody can force you ... but your neighbours will >>> make sure that your life is just that little bit less pleasant and >>> friendly-like. >> >> Compliance is voluntary. I wonder how that would work with Idi Amine >> or Stalin. > >Probably not with Stalin, but Idi Amin ... it could have worked. I am not sure - he would probably have eaten any detractors. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> For any number of reasons, nations may be more or >>>>> less willing to satisfy their obligations, and alas, those treaties are >>>>> usually quite lacking in provisions to enforce compliance when they are >>>>> less than enthusiastic. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This may be the exercise of an international arrest warrant on specific >>>>>>> members of a regime, or the impositions of sanctions (including the >>>>>>> freezing or expropriation of the offending nation's assets within their >>>>>>> jurisdiction), or to suspend cultural, sporting, business, political >>>>>>> ties with the offending country, right up to military intervention >>>>>>> subject to an international mandate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it infallible? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hell, no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But short of a world government, it is probably the best we can do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Every bit of that is voluntary and can easily be ignored. >>>>> >>>>> Except that ignoring it is the only alternative that is worse. >>>> >>>> Perhaps. >>> >>> Take Somalia. They slid downhill, we ignored it. Their state went into >>> meltdown, we still ignored it. It was taken over by hardcore Islamists, >>> we still did our best to ignore it. Then they started to hijack our >>> shipping, expand their violence to neighbouring countries and serve as a >>> refuge and launchpad for terror aimed at us. So now, instead of dealing >>> with a small contained problem, we have a credible (and costly) threat >>> to global trade requiring a permanent (and costly) naval presence, >>> constant low-level military action in the region, terrorist attacks on >>> tourists and our own nations, and a strategically important piece of >>> real estate that will need a full-scale occupation and re-building from >>> first principles if it is ever going to stop being an un-ignorable (and >>> costly) problem. >> >> Yet we cannot solve all the problems everywhere with the currently PC >> diplomacy. > >We have to accept that we cannot ever solve all problems everywhere. > >What we can do is to put mechanisms in place to mitigate and manage the >risk, and especially to reduce the fallout. We cannot put boots on the >ground in all the hot spots. Nor can we go round ignoring everything. >And there is neither the will nor the resources to do a proper job of >nation-building for every pisspot banananana republic that would require >it. > >So the least bad alternative, however frustrating and unpalatable, is to >stick with diplomacy and international cooperation ... and try not to >badmouth and undermine those institutions too much. > > We don't use the fear factor enough. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 12:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4jis7FdprqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393335 |
On 23/09/2016 00:13, Attila wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:17:02 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in > alt.atheism with message-id <e4hic0FtafoU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Enforcement? By who? The UN has no enforcement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By obliging signatory nations to take action. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If they choose to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Depending on the specific terms of the treaties and agreements which >>>>>> they ratified, yes. >>>>> >>>>> In any case. If a country ignores the 'action' just who is going to >>>>> force them to comply? >>>> >>>> Force them? Nobody. But usually, fellow nations will exert diplomatic >>>> and political pressure to do so. Everybody in the street mows their >>>> front lawn but you, nobody can force you ... but your neighbours will >>>> make sure that your life is just that little bit less pleasant and >>>> friendly-like. >>> >>> Compliance is voluntary. I wonder how that would work with Idi Amine >>> or Stalin. >> >> Probably not with Stalin, but Idi Amin ... it could have worked. > > I am not sure - he would probably have eaten any detractors. In the end, he was forced out by the international community ... even if he never did have to account for himself before a court. >> We have to accept that we cannot ever solve all problems everywhere. >> >> What we can do is to put mechanisms in place to mitigate and manage the >> risk, and especially to reduce the fallout. We cannot put boots on the >> ground in all the hot spots. Nor can we go round ignoring everything. >> And there is neither the will nor the resources to do a proper job of >> nation-building for every pisspot banananana republic that would require >> it. >> >> So the least bad alternative, however frustrating and unpalatable, is to >> stick with diplomacy and international cooperation ... and try not to >> badmouth and undermine those institutions too much. >> >> > We don't use the fear factor enough. How would we do that? Send in the troops? We do not have that many military resources.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 14:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5suaub1jbpmfq41utb337155vnr2mmpgk9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393438 |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:37:59 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4jis7FdprqU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >> We don't use the fear factor enough. > >How would we do that? Send in the troops? We do not have that many >military resources. That need correcting. Once the current idiot is history. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 10:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4m02mF157fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393510 |
On 24/09/2016 04:59, Attila wrote: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:37:59 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in > alt.atheism with message-id <e4jis7FdprqU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: > >>> We don't use the fear factor enough. >> >> How would we do that? Send in the troops? We do not have that many >> military resources. > > That need correcting. Once the current idiot is history. So, tell me: how often has military intervention really worked? More often than not, we disrupt what little stability there is and we leave behind even more instability and mess. Not least because we tend to lack the political will and far-sightedness to follow through with a proper job of rebuilding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 05:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4p05hFmq73U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393438 |
Am 23.09.2016 04:37, schrieb Alex W.: >>>> Compliance is voluntary. I wonder how that would work with Idi Amine >>>> or Stalin. >>> >>> Probably not with Stalin, but Idi Amin ... it could have worked. >> >> I am not sure - he would probably have eaten any detractors. > > In the end, he was forced out by the international community ... even if > he never did have to account for himself before a court. > Both (Stalin and Idi Amin) were British agents. The Brits have a certain way, how they control remote countries: they pick up a local wanker from the streets and take him to one of their facilities. There he gets washed and gets now clothes and something to eat. Then he gets brainwashed by mysticism and sadistic rituals. If he shows no more signs of moral and ethics, he is sent back and gets promoted, so that he can raise up in the ranks of that country. To make him the leader, the opponents are wiped out and a revolt is initiated. After the bad guy is in position, he has to fulfil the hidden treaties (hand over land, minerals, licenses and so forth). Then he can do, whatever he likes (as long as he kills a lot of his own countrymen). Stalin was actually a criminal from Georgia and had as 'profession' bank-robber. His real name was Jossif Djugashvili. Hitler was actually a homeless gay prostitute from Vienna. Similar features we find in several other British proteges. Often tey use PoWs as agents (which is a war crime). E.g. the later Admiral Karl Dönitz was 'turned around' in British prison. This is illegal, since it is in violation of the Geneva convention. But bad habits do not pay on the long run. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 05:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n55fub5m66m41n6ef35gnm31i8u3l5r1e1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393687 |
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 05:55:26 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4p05hFmq73U1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 23.09.2016 04:37, schrieb Alex W.: > > >>>>> Compliance is voluntary. I wonder how that would work with Idi Amine >>>>> or Stalin. >>>> >>>> Probably not with Stalin, but Idi Amin ... it could have worked. >>> >>> I am not sure - he would probably have eaten any detractors. >> >> In the end, he was forced out by the international community ... even if >> he never did have to account for himself before a court. >> > >Both (Stalin and Idi Amin) were British agents. Not outside of fiction. Bad fiction. > >The Brits have a certain way, how they control remote countries: >they pick up a local wanker from the streets and take him to one of >their facilities. > >There he gets washed and gets now clothes and something to eat. > >Then he gets brainwashed by mysticism and sadistic rituals. > >If he shows no more signs of moral and ethics, he is sent back and gets >promoted, so that he can raise up in the ranks of that country. Of only it was that simple. > >To make him the leader, the opponents are wiped out and a revolt is >initiated. > >After the bad guy is in position, he has to fulfil the hidden treaties >(hand over land, minerals, licenses and so forth). Then he can do, >whatever he likes (as long as he kills a lot of his own countrymen). > >Stalin was actually a criminal from Georgia and had as 'profession' >bank-robber. His real name was Jossif Djugashvili. Not exactly a secret. > >Hitler was actually a homeless gay prostitute from Vienna. You can prove that of course. > >Similar features we find in several other British proteges. > >Often tey use PoWs as agents (which is a war crime). > >E.g. the later Admiral Karl Dönitz was 'turned around' in British prison. > >This is illegal, since it is in violation of the Geneva convention. > >But bad habits do not pay on the long run. > >TH > > -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 19:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4qfapF3f02U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393702 |
Am 25.09.2016 11:13, schrieb Attila <: >> >>>>>> Compliance is voluntary. I wonder how that would work with Idi Amine >>>>>> or Stalin. >>>>> >>>>> Probably not with Stalin, but Idi Amin ... it could have worked. >>>> >>>> I am not sure - he would probably have eaten any detractors. >>> >>> In the end, he was forced out by the international community ... even if >>> he never did have to account for himself before a court. >>> >> >> Both (Stalin and Idi Amin) were British agents. > > Not outside of fiction. Bad fiction. "Uganda: How the West brought Idi Amin to power" http://links.org.au/node/2784 Quote "That Idi Amin was a brutal dictator of extraordinary cruelty is well known and becomes more so as the tally of his victims, according to conventional accounts, topped over 100,000 between 1971-75. What is less known is the role of the British government and its allies not only in maintaining Amin's machinery of repression but in actually establishing him in power." >> >> The Brits have a certain way, how they control remote countries: >> they pick up a local wanker from the streets and take him to one of >> their facilities. >> >> There he gets washed and gets now clothes and something to eat. >> >> Then he gets brainwashed by mysticism and sadistic rituals. >> >> If he shows no more signs of moral and ethics, he is sent back and gets >> promoted, so that he can raise up in the ranks of that country. > > Of only it was that simple. > >> >> To make him the leader, the opponents are wiped out and a revolt is >> initiated. >> >> After the bad guy is in position, he has to fulfil the hidden treaties >> (hand over land, minerals, licenses and so forth). Then he can do, >> whatever he likes (as long as he kills a lot of his own countrymen). >> >> Stalin was actually a criminal from Georgia and had as 'profession' >> bank-robber. His real name was Jossif Djugashvili. > > Not exactly a secret. > >> >> Hitler was actually a homeless gay prostitute from Vienna. > > You can prove that of course. I actually assume, that the German Kanzler (commonly called 'The Fuehrer') was actually a British spy, who used the false identity 'Hitler'. His real identity was 'Noel Trevenen Huxley' (my guess). http://www.reformation.org/british-secret-service-agent-adolf-hitler.html https://archive.org/details/HitlerWasABritishAgent https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-British-Agent-Solving-History/dp/047311478X I'm also quite certain, that the book 'Mein Kampf' is actually a translation into German from an English original. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tjfgubhcj8invh2q6pcmlv64juf68qvkpu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393744 |
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:20:17 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4qfapF3f02U1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 25.09.2016 11:13, schrieb Attila <: > >>> >>>>>>> Compliance is voluntary. I wonder how that would work with Idi Amine >>>>>>> or Stalin. >>>>>> >>>>>> Probably not with Stalin, but Idi Amin ... it could have worked. >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure - he would probably have eaten any detractors. >>>> >>>> In the end, he was forced out by the international community ... even if >>>> he never did have to account for himself before a court. >>>> >>> >>> Both (Stalin and Idi Amin) were British agents. >> >> Not outside of fiction. Bad fiction. > >"Uganda: How the West brought Idi Amin to power" > >http://links.org.au/node/2784 > >Quote > >"That Idi Amin was a brutal dictator of extraordinary cruelty is well >known and becomes more so as the tally of his victims, according to >conventional accounts, topped over 100,000 between 1971-75. What is less >known is the role of the British government and its allies not only in >maintaining Amin's machinery of repression but in actually establishing >him in power." > >>> >>> The Brits have a certain way, how they control remote countries: >>> they pick up a local wanker from the streets and take him to one of >>> their facilities. >>> >>> There he gets washed and gets now clothes and something to eat. >>> >>> Then he gets brainwashed by mysticism and sadistic rituals. >>> >>> If he shows no more signs of moral and ethics, he is sent back and gets >>> promoted, so that he can raise up in the ranks of that country. >> >> Of only it was that simple. >> >>> >>> To make him the leader, the opponents are wiped out and a revolt is >>> initiated. >>> >>> After the bad guy is in position, he has to fulfil the hidden treaties >>> (hand over land, minerals, licenses and so forth). Then he can do, >>> whatever he likes (as long as he kills a lot of his own countrymen). >>> >>> Stalin was actually a criminal from Georgia and had as 'profession' >>> bank-robber. His real name was Jossif Djugashvili. >> >> Not exactly a secret. >> >>> >>> Hitler was actually a homeless gay prostitute from Vienna. >> >> You can prove that of course. > >I actually assume, that the German Kanzler (commonly called 'The >Fuehrer') was actually a British spy, who used the false identity 'Hitler'. > >His real identity was 'Noel Trevenen Huxley' (my guess). > >http://www.reformation.org/british-secret-service-agent-adolf-hitler.html > >https://archive.org/details/HitlerWasABritishAgent > >https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-British-Agent-Solving-History/dp/047311478X > >I'm also quite certain, that the book 'Mein Kampf' is actually a >translation into German from an English original. > > >TH You are insane. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 06:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4rndiFcbc5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393767 |
Am 25.09.2016 23:16, schrieb Attila <:
>> http://www.reformation.org/british-secret-service-agent-adolf-hitler.html
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/HitlerWasABritishAgent
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-British-Agent-Solving-History/dp/047311478X
>>
>> I'm also quite certain, that the book 'Mein Kampf' is actually a
>> translation into German from an English original.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> You are insane.
Well, maybe (but most likely not). It is irrelevant anyhow, since I can
prove, that 'My Struggle' (in English) was the original version, which
was only translated by Hess and Hitler.
This would require to compare a piece of text from both versions.
You can take actually any piece you like, but for reasons of convenience
I take a fragment, which I have used recently to show this effect in
another forum.
So I take a piece of text from the English version and the same from the
German one and compare them for style, linguistic errors, content and so
forth.
Since I'm German, my first language is German and I can - of course -
understand German quite well. My English is a little less, but should be
good enough.
The German version is rather twisted and almost impossible to
understand, while the English version is very clear, easy to understand
and much better written.
English version
"The Revolution of 1848 was perhaps a struggle of classes everywhere,
but in Austria it was the commencement of a fresh struggle of
nationalities.
But the German, either forgetting or not realizing that origin, placed
himself at the service of the revolutionary movement, and he sealed his
own fate by so doing. He played his part in arousing the spirit of world
democracy, which in a short time robbed him of the principles underlying
his own existence.
The formation of a representative parliamentary body, without previous
establishment of the principle of a common State language, laid the
foundation stone of the end of the predominance of the German race. And
from that moment the State itself was bound for destruction. What then
followed was the historical evolution of an Empire."
German version
"Die Revolution des Jahres 1848 konnte überall Klassenkampf sein, in
Österreich jedoch war sie schon der Beginn eines neuen Rassenstreites.
Indem damals der Deutsche, diesen Ursprung vergessend oder nicht
erkennend, sich in den Dienst der revolutionären Erhebung stellte,
besiegelte er damit sein eigenes Los. Er half mit, den Geist der
westlichen Demokratie zu erwecken, der in kurzer Zeit ihm die Grundlagen
der eigenen Existenz entzog.
Mit der Bildung eines parlamentarischen Vertretungskörpers ohne die
vorhergehende Niederlegung und Festigung einer gemeinsamen Staatssprache
war der Grundstein zum Ende der Vorherrschaft des Deutschtums in der
Monarchie gelegt worden. Von diesem Augenblick an war damit aber auch
der Staat selber verloren. Alles, was nun noch folgte, war nur die
historische Abwicklung eines Reiches."
We have a very funny error in the German version.
The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in the
English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
address the speaker himself.
'Deutscher' does not mean 'person speaking German', but being citizen of
Germany. This is funny, since the book talks about Austria. Austrian
citizens are called 'Österreicher'.
This is similar to 'English', which is also a language and a
nationality. So a Canadian would not say 'English' about himself, but
'Canadian', even if he speaks English.
The German version confuses the relation between nation and language
even more, since it introduces the term 'race' in connection to
'German'. (the English version uses 'nationalities')
The German version is plain nonsense, since you cannot find out, who has
done what.
So German citizens cannot understand, how they had a role in the
internal struggles between nationalities in the KuK Empire or how this
sealed their fate.
Even stranger is the assumed mechanism, which would be so fatal for 'the
German'.
The German version says:
' he helped to awaken the spirit of western democracy, who robbed within
a short period the foundations of his own existence'.
This not only terrible German, but it is also hard to understand, who
had robbed what (the spirit his own foundations???).
Next: We find a typical English construct in the German version (where
it makes no sense).
In English you use singular case, if you want to address people. You say
'The English', 'The German', 'The Canadian', if you want to address 'sum
of all the people of England/Germany/Canada'.
But in German you always use the plural form. This is mandatory, since
the singular 'der Engländer' (for instance) means 'one specific person
from England'. ('Der' is the specific, singular male form of an article
in German. So 'der' would address only one male.)
So 'Der Deutsche' does NOT mean 'all speakers of German' or 'all
citizens of Germany', but 'one single specific citizen of Germany'.
This does not include citizens of Austria, since Austrians are called
'Österreicher' in German.
Next: Austrian Parliament was called 'Reichsrat'. The deputies got
nothing. So the text does not describe the deputy chamber of the
Austrian Reichsrat.
What is in fact described is the House of Commons.
We see this in the paragraph before the quoted text:
"When the election day is over and the parliamentarians have held their
last public meeting for the next five years, when they can leave their
job of getting the populace to toe the line and can now devote
themselves to higher and more pleasing tasks -- then the program
committee is dissolved and the struggle for the progressive
reorganization of public affairs becomes once again a business of
earning one's daily bread, which for the parliamentarians means merely
the attendance that is required in order to be able to draw their daily
remunerations."
This is obviously not a description of the Austrian 'Reichsrat' (deputy
chamber of KuK Austria), but of the House of Commons.
Reason is simple:
the Austrian Parliament had a variable length of sitting periods, but in
most cases used six years.
Five years was the term for the House of Commons.
'Daily remunerations' were also unknown in Austria.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 22:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57E8B4C6.7657@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #393805 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 25.09.2016 23:16, schrieb Attila <:
>
> >> http://www.reformation.org/british-secret-service-agent-adolf-hitler.html
> >>
> >> https://archive.org/details/HitlerWasABritishAgent
> >>
> >> https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-British-Agent-Solving-History/dp/047311478X
> >>
> >> I'm also quite certain, that the book 'Mein Kampf' is actually a
> >> translation into German from an English original.
> >>
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > You are insane.
>
> Well, maybe (but most likely not). It is irrelevant anyhow, since I can
> prove, that 'My Struggle' (in English) was the original version, which
> was only translated by Hess and Hitler.
>
> This would require to compare a piece of text from both versions.
>
> You can take actually any piece you like, but for reasons of convenience
> I take a fragment, which I have used recently to show this effect in
> another forum.
>
> So I take a piece of text from the English version and the same from the
> German one and compare them for style, linguistic errors, content and so
> forth.
>
> Since I'm German, my first language is German and I can - of course -
> understand German quite well. My English is a little less, but should be
> good enough.
>
> The German version is rather twisted and almost impossible to
> understand, while the English version is very clear, easy to understand
> and much better written.
>
> English version
>
> "The Revolution of 1848 was perhaps a struggle of classes everywhere,
> but in Austria it was the commencement of a fresh struggle of
> nationalities.
>
> But the German, either forgetting or not realizing that origin, placed
> himself at the service of the revolutionary movement, and he sealed his
> own fate by so doing. He played his part in arousing the spirit of world
> democracy, which in a short time robbed him of the principles underlying
> his own existence.
>
> The formation of a representative parliamentary body, without previous
> establishment of the principle of a common State language, laid the
> foundation stone of the end of the predominance of the German race. And
> from that moment the State itself was bound for destruction. What then
> followed was the historical evolution of an Empire."
>
> German version
>
> "Die Revolution des Jahres 1848 konnte überall Klassenkampf sein, in
> Österreich jedoch war sie schon der Beginn eines neuen Rassenstreites.
>
> Indem damals der Deutsche, diesen Ursprung vergessend oder nicht
> erkennend, sich in den Dienst der revolutionären Erhebung stellte,
> besiegelte er damit sein eigenes Los. Er half mit, den Geist der
> westlichen Demokratie zu erwecken, der in kurzer Zeit ihm die Grundlagen
> der eigenen Existenz entzog.
>
> Mit der Bildung eines parlamentarischen Vertretungskörpers ohne die
> vorhergehende Niederlegung und Festigung einer gemeinsamen Staatssprache
> war der Grundstein zum Ende der Vorherrschaft des Deutschtums in der
> Monarchie gelegt worden. Von diesem Augenblick an war damit aber auch
> der Staat selber verloren. Alles, was nun noch folgte, war nur die
> historische Abwicklung eines Reiches."
>
> We have a very funny error in the German version.
>
> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
>
> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in the
> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
>
> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
> address the speaker himself.
>
> 'Deutscher' does not mean 'person speaking German', but being citizen of
> Germany. This is funny, since the book talks about Austria. Austrian
> citizens are called 'Österreicher'.
>
> This is similar to 'English', which is also a language and a
> nationality. So a Canadian would not say 'English' about himself, but
> 'Canadian', even if he speaks English.
>
> The German version confuses the relation between nation and language
> even more, since it introduces the term 'race' in connection to
> 'German'. (the English version uses 'nationalities')
>
> The German version is plain nonsense, since you cannot find out, who has
> done what.
>
> So German citizens cannot understand, how they had a role in the
> internal struggles between nationalities in the KuK Empire or how this
> sealed their fate.
>
> Even stranger is the assumed mechanism, which would be so fatal for 'the
> German'.
>
> The German version says:
>
> ' he helped to awaken the spirit of western democracy, who robbed within
> a short period the foundations of his own existence'.
>
> This not only terrible German, but it is also hard to understand, who
> had robbed what (the spirit his own foundations???).
>
> Next: We find a typical English construct in the German version (where
> it makes no sense).
>
> In English you use singular case, if you want to address people. You say
> 'The English', 'The German', 'The Canadian', if you want to address 'sum
> of all the people of England/Germany/Canada'.
>
> But in German you always use the plural form. This is mandatory, since
> the singular 'der Engländer' (for instance) means 'one specific person
> from England'. ('Der' is the specific, singular male form of an article
> in German. So 'der' would address only one male.)
>
> So 'Der Deutsche' does NOT mean 'all speakers of German' or 'all
> citizens of Germany', but 'one single specific citizen of Germany'.
>
> This does not include citizens of Austria, since Austrians are called
> 'Österreicher' in German.
>
> Next: Austrian Parliament was called 'Reichsrat'. The deputies got
> nothing. So the text does not describe the deputy chamber of the
> Austrian Reichsrat.
>
> What is in fact described is the House of Commons.
>
> We see this in the paragraph before the quoted text:
>
> "When the election day is over and the parliamentarians have held their
> last public meeting for the next five years, when they can leave their
> job of getting the populace to toe the line and can now devote
> themselves to higher and more pleasing tasks -- then the program
> committee is dissolved and the struggle for the progressive
> reorganization of public affairs becomes once again a business of
> earning one's daily bread, which for the parliamentarians means merely
> the attendance that is required in order to be able to draw their daily
> remunerations."
>
> This is obviously not a description of the Austrian 'Reichsrat' (deputy
> chamber of KuK Austria), but of the House of Commons.
>
> Reason is simple:
>
> the Austrian Parliament had a variable length of sitting periods, but in
> most cases used six years.
>
> Five years was the term for the House of Commons.
>
> 'Daily remunerations' were also unknown in Austria.
>
> TH
Do you watch Hogans Hero's on Tv?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 17:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4s2l4Fer9dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393805 |
On 26/09/2016 14:44, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.09.2016 23:16, schrieb Attila <:
>
>>>
>>> I'm also quite certain, that the book 'Mein Kampf' is actually a
>>> translation into German from an English original.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> You are insane.
>
> Well, maybe (but most likely not). It is irrelevant anyhow, since I can
> prove, that 'My Struggle' (in English) was the original version, which
> was only translated by Hess and Hitler.
>
> This would require to compare a piece of text from both versions.
>
> You can take actually any piece you like, but for reasons of convenience
> I take a fragment, which I have used recently to show this effect in
> another forum.
>
> So I take a piece of text from the English version and the same from the
> German one and compare them for style, linguistic errors, content and so
> forth.
>
> Since I'm German, my first language is German and I can - of course -
> understand German quite well. My English is a little less, but should be
> good enough.
Your English is not good enough for this.
>
>
> The German version is rather twisted and almost impossible to
> understand, while the English version is very clear, easy to understand
> and much better written.
Which is also true of the work of Thomas Mann and many other
German-language writers.
>
> English version
>
> "The Revolution of 1848 was perhaps a struggle of classes everywhere,
> but in Austria it was the commencement of a fresh struggle of
> nationalities.
>
> But the German, either forgetting or not realizing that origin, placed
> himself at the service of the revolutionary movement, and he sealed his
> own fate by so doing. He played his part in arousing the spirit of world
> democracy, which in a short time robbed him of the principles underlying
> his own existence.
>
> The formation of a representative parliamentary body, without previous
> establishment of the principle of a common State language, laid the
> foundation stone of the end of the predominance of the German race. And
> from that moment the State itself was bound for destruction. What then
> followed was the historical evolution of an Empire."
>
>
> German version
>
> "Die Revolution des Jahres 1848 konnte überall Klassenkampf sein, in
> Österreich jedoch war sie schon der Beginn eines neuen Rassenstreites.
>
> Indem damals der Deutsche, diesen Ursprung vergessend oder nicht
> erkennend, sich in den Dienst der revolutionären Erhebung stellte,
> besiegelte er damit sein eigenes Los. Er half mit, den Geist der
> westlichen Demokratie zu erwecken, der in kurzer Zeit ihm die Grundlagen
> der eigenen Existenz entzog.
>
> Mit der Bildung eines parlamentarischen Vertretungskörpers ohne die
> vorhergehende Niederlegung und Festigung einer gemeinsamen Staatssprache
> war der Grundstein zum Ende der Vorherrschaft des Deutschtums in der
> Monarchie gelegt worden. Von diesem Augenblick an war damit aber auch
> der Staat selber verloren. Alles, was nun noch folgte, war nur die
> historische Abwicklung eines Reiches."
>
>
> We have a very funny error in the German version.
>
> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
>
> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in the
> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
>
> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
> address the speaker himself.
"Der deutschsprachige".
>
> 'Deutscher' does not mean 'person speaking German', but being citizen of
> Germany. This is funny, since the book talks about Austria. Austrian
> citizens are called 'Österreicher'.
Remember the Anschluss? Hitler never really accepted the
differentiation between German and Austrian -- culturally,
linguistically, or politically. He always had visions of a
Grossdeutschland, and this is clearly reflected in his language. This
is why the first bit of German-speaking Europe to be gobbled up and
brought "heim ins Reich" was Austria....
>
> This is similar to 'English', which is also a language and a
> nationality. So a Canadian would not say 'English' about himself, but
> 'Canadian', even if he speaks English.
But until very recently indeed, it was quite common for a Briton to use
"England" and "English" when referring to the whole of the United
Kingdom. In fact, this long-standing habit of conflating England and
Britain is at the root of our current national confusion and search for
a specific English identity distinct from the British one.
>
> The German version confuses the relation between nation and language
> even more, since it introduces the term 'race' in connection to
> 'German'. (the English version uses 'nationalities')
>
> The German version is plain nonsense, since you cannot find out, who has
> done what.
>
> So German citizens cannot understand, how they had a role in the
> internal struggles between nationalities in the KuK Empire or how this
> sealed their fate.
>
> Even stranger is the assumed mechanism, which would be so fatal for 'the
> German'.
>
> The German version says:
>
> ' he helped to awaken the spirit of western democracy, who robbed within
> a short period the foundations of his own existence'.
>
> This not only terrible German, but it is also hard to understand, who
> had robbed what (the spirit his own foundations???).
>
>
> Next: We find a typical English construct in the German version (where
> it makes no sense).
>
> In English you use singular case, if you want to address people. You say
> 'The English', 'The German', 'The Canadian', if you want to address 'sum
> of all the people of England/Germany/Canada'.
>
> But in German you always use the plural form. This is mandatory, since
> the singular 'der Engländer' (for instance) means 'one specific person
> from England'. ('Der' is the specific, singular male form of an article
> in German. So 'der' would address only one male.)
Which is rubbish.
"Der Engländer trinkt gerne Tee" is a perfectly acceptable and correct
use of German to indicate that English people like to drink tea. In
fact, you could not construct this sentence in English using the singular.
Apparently, not only is your English not good enough, but neither is
your German...
>
> So 'Der Deutsche' does NOT mean 'all speakers of German' or 'all
> citizens of Germany', but 'one single specific citizen of Germany'.
>
> This does not include citizens of Austria, since Austrians are called
> 'Österreicher' in German.
.... unless, as I pointed out above, one happens to be a believer in the
political theory of "Grossdeutschland", for whom there is no such
distinction between a German national, an Austrian, a Volga German with
a Russian passport, or a Siebenbürger German with a Rumanian passport.
To them, they are all "German". The believer in Grossdeutschland is not
really concerned with nationalities, and far more with the German "race"
... which may be spread out over many different nations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 23:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4th55Fq4d9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393825 |
Am 26.09.2016 09:56, schrieb Alex W.:
>> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
>> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
>>
>> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in the
>> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
>>
>> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
>> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
>> address the speaker himself.
>
> "Der deutschsprachige".
No!
There is actually no Word for what you try to express. The sum of all
speakers of German could be called 'Deutscher', if that is what you want
to say.
But it is a very unusual idea, since Germans think mainly in
territories. So people from a certain region are named after that region.
E.g. 'Pole' means citizen of Poland.
If a former citizen of Poland gets German citizenship he is called
Deutscher, because Germany ( Deutschland) is a territory. And if you
settle there, you are named after this territory.
For instance soccer hero Lukas Podolski is regarded as German, even if
he stems from Poland.
The Queen on the other hand is not regarded as German, since she lives
in England, (despite that e.g. Mountbatten means 'Battenberg')
>
>>
>> 'Deutscher' does not mean 'person speaking German', but being citizen of
>> Germany. This is funny, since the book talks about Austria. Austrian
>> citizens are called 'Österreicher'.
>
> Remember the Anschluss? Hitler never really accepted the differentiation
> between German and Austrian -- culturally, linguistically, or
> politically. He always had visions of a Grossdeutschland, and this is
> clearly reflected in his language. This is why the first bit of
> German-speaking Europe to be gobbled up and brought "heim ins Reich" was
> Austria....
May I remind you, that I think, that 'Hitler' was actually a British
spy, who used the false identity of an Austrian gay prostitute?
>
>>
>> This is similar to 'English', which is also a language and a
>> nationality. So a Canadian would not say 'English' about himself, but
>> 'Canadian', even if he speaks English.
>
> But until very recently indeed, it was quite common for a Briton to use
> "England" and "English" when referring to the whole of the United
> Kingdom. In fact, this long-standing habit of conflating England and
> Britain is at the root of our current national confusion and search for
> a specific English identity distinct from the British one.
>
Great Britten is a union of England, Wales and Scottland.
Scotsmen always said they are Scottish. (People from Wales I don't know
enough to make a statement.)
>>
>> The German version confuses the relation between nation and language
>> even more, since it introduces the term 'race' in connection to
>> 'German'. (the English version uses 'nationalities')
>>
>> The German version is plain nonsense, since you cannot find out, who has
>> done what.
>>
>> So German citizens cannot understand, how they had a role in the
>> internal struggles between nationalities in the KuK Empire or how this
>> sealed their fate.
>>
>> Even stranger is the assumed mechanism, which would be so fatal for 'the
>> German'.
>>
>> The German version says:
>>
>> ' he helped to awaken the spirit of western democracy, who robbed within
>> a short period the foundations of his own existence'.
>>
>> This not only terrible German, but it is also hard to understand, who
>> had robbed what (the spirit his own foundations???).
>>
>>
>> Next: We find a typical English construct in the German version (where
>> it makes no sense).
>>
>> In English you use singular case, if you want to address people. You say
>> 'The English', 'The German', 'The Canadian', if you want to address 'sum
>> of all the people of England/Germany/Canada'.
>>
>> But in German you always use the plural form. This is mandatory, since
>> the singular 'der Engländer' (for instance) means 'one specific person
>> from England'. ('Der' is the specific, singular male form of an article
>> in German. So 'der' would address only one male.)
>
> Which is rubbish.
>
> "Der Engländer trinkt gerne Tee" is a perfectly acceptable and correct
> use of German to indicate that English people like to drink tea. In
> fact, you could not construct this sentence in English using the singular.
It is somehow possible, but 'old school'. Usually you use the plural, if
you want to address people from a certain nation.
('Die Engländer trinken gerne Tee').
The German article 'der' is more than the English 'the' specifically male.
So 'Der Engländer.. ' -meant as an example for a multitude of people-
means a multitude of males from England.
'Die Engländerin.. ' means females only.
But the specific article (der,die, das) is not that often used for
descriptions of groups.
You are right and it is actually possible. But it sounds a little
strange and people would most likely use other words.
This is - btw- a characteristic of the entire book. You find this type
of language everywhere in the book. This language is 'stiff', old
school, complicated and often hard to understand.
E.g. the word 'Vertretungskörper' for parliament is extremely unusual,
though somehow possible. But a German would not use such a phrase.
>>
>> So 'Der Deutsche' does NOT mean 'all speakers of German' or 'all
>> citizens of Germany', but 'one single specific citizen of Germany'.
>>
>> This does not include citizens of Austria, since Austrians are called
>> 'Österreicher' in German.
>
> .... unless, as I pointed out above, one happens to be a believer in the
> political theory of "Grossdeutschland", for whom there is no such
> distinction between a German national, an Austrian, a Volga German with
> a Russian passport, or a Siebenbürger German with a Rumanian passport.
> To them, they are all "German". The believer in Grossdeutschland is not
> really concerned with nationalities, and far more with the German "race"
> ... which may be spread out over many different nations.
The idea of a German race is Nazi crap. In fact the people that speak
German are not very related in an ethnic sense. Germans are composed of
people from various directions, like Kelts, Frisians, Slavic people,
Scandinavians, Romanic tribes, Anglo-Saxons, Swabians, Francs and so forth.
'German' stems from the Romans and they used that name for a couple of
tribes, that have never settled in what is Germany now, like Teutones,
Goth or Vandals.
The idea of the German 'Arian race' stems from the French Count August
De Gobineau.
What the Nazis meant with 'Großdeutschland' was a revival of the
medieval empire of the Francs.
But the Francs were the same people after which France is named. Their
capital was Paris and their language was French.
And they were regarded as arch-enemy by the Prussians.
'Österreich' (Austria) means 'Eastern part of the (Frankish) Empire'.
Germany was the middle part.
And the entire thing was called 'Holy Roman Empire of German nations'.
There was a coup of the so called 'hausmaier', who took over the
Frankish Empire with the help of the pope.
But modern Germans are predominantly protestants, not Frankish, do not
speak French and regard Austria as nice place to for skiing.
The relations to Austria are quite ok. But I have never heard from
anybody, that he actually wants a unification with Austria. The idea
would be regarded as twisted.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 19:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4uqseF4pcjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393918 |
On 27/09/2016 07:09, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 26.09.2016 09:56, schrieb Alex W.:
>
>>> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
>>> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
>>>
>>> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in the
>>> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
>>>
>>> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
>>> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
>>> address the speaker himself.
>>
>> "Der deutschsprachige".
>
> No!
>
> There is actually no Word for what you try to express. The sum of all
> speakers of German could be called 'Deutscher', if that is what you want
> to say.
You claimed that there was no word in German for "speaker of the German
language". I corrected you.
>
> But it is a very unusual idea, since Germans think mainly in
> territories. So people from a certain region are named after that region.
>
> E.g. 'Pole' means citizen of Poland.
>
> If a former citizen of Poland gets German citizenship he is called
> Deutscher, because Germany ( Deutschland) is a territory. And if you
> settle there, you are named after this territory.
>
> For instance soccer hero Lukas Podolski is regarded as German, even if
> he stems from Poland.
Podolski, to the German nationalist, was always a German. His
grandparents were "Reichsbürger", meaning they were ethnic German --
Schlesier, to be precise.
>
> The Queen on the other hand is not regarded as German, since she lives
> in England, (despite that e.g. Mountbatten means 'Battenberg')
Which may be true for most people today, but it is not correct for those
who think in racial terms, or those who subscribe to the idea of
Grossdeutschland. It was not true for Hitler or those who believed in
his screwy ideology. They thought in terms of culture and language, and
they made no difference between an Austrian, a Volga German or a
Sudetendeutscher.
>>
>>>
>>> 'Deutscher' does not mean 'person speaking German', but being citizen of
>>> Germany. This is funny, since the book talks about Austria. Austrian
>>> citizens are called 'Österreicher'.
>>
>> Remember the Anschluss? Hitler never really accepted the differentiation
>> between German and Austrian -- culturally, linguistically, or
>> politically. He always had visions of a Grossdeutschland, and this is
>> clearly reflected in his language. This is why the first bit of
>> German-speaking Europe to be gobbled up and brought "heim ins Reich" was
>> Austria....
>
> May I remind you, that I think, that 'Hitler' was actually a British
> spy, who used the false identity of an Austrian gay prostitute?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> This is similar to 'English', which is also a language and a
>>> nationality. So a Canadian would not say 'English' about himself, but
>>> 'Canadian', even if he speaks English.
>>
>> But until very recently indeed, it was quite common for a Briton to use
>> "England" and "English" when referring to the whole of the United
>> Kingdom. In fact, this long-standing habit of conflating England and
>> Britain is at the root of our current national confusion and search for
>> a specific English identity distinct from the British one.
>>
> Great Britten is a union of England, Wales and Scottland.
>
> Scotsmen always said they are Scottish. (People from Wales I don't know
> enough to make a statement.)
Which was not really an issue back when "Mein Kampf" was written. At
that time, Scottish nationalism had yet to flourish and natives of the
British Isles quite happily and uncontroversially called themselves
"British" and would not have objected to the use of "England" to
describe their nation.
>
>>>
>>> The German version confuses the relation between nation and language
>>> even more, since it introduces the term 'race' in connection to
>>> 'German'. (the English version uses 'nationalities')
>>>
>>> The German version is plain nonsense, since you cannot find out, who has
>>> done what.
>>>
>>> So German citizens cannot understand, how they had a role in the
>>> internal struggles between nationalities in the KuK Empire or how this
>>> sealed their fate.
>>>
>>> Even stranger is the assumed mechanism, which would be so fatal for 'the
>>> German'.
>>>
>>> The German version says:
>>>
>>> ' he helped to awaken the spirit of western democracy, who robbed within
>>> a short period the foundations of his own existence'.
>>>
>>> This not only terrible German, but it is also hard to understand, who
>>> had robbed what (the spirit his own foundations???).
>>>
>>>
>>> Next: We find a typical English construct in the German version (where
>>> it makes no sense).
>>>
>>> In English you use singular case, if you want to address people. You say
>>> 'The English', 'The German', 'The Canadian', if you want to address 'sum
>>> of all the people of England/Germany/Canada'.
>>>
>>> But in German you always use the plural form. This is mandatory, since
>>> the singular 'der Engländer' (for instance) means 'one specific person
>>> from England'. ('Der' is the specific, singular male form of an article
>>> in German. So 'der' would address only one male.)
>>
>> Which is rubbish.
>>
>> "Der Engländer trinkt gerne Tee" is a perfectly acceptable and correct
>> use of German to indicate that English people like to drink tea. In
>> fact, you could not construct this sentence in English using the
>> singular.
>
>
> It is somehow possible, but 'old school'. Usually you use the plural, if
> you want to address people from a certain nation.
>
> ('Die Engländer trinken gerne Tee').
>
> The German article 'der' is more than the English 'the' specifically male.
>
> So 'Der Engländer.. ' -meant as an example for a multitude of people-
> means a multitude of males from England.
>
> 'Die Engländerin.. ' means females only.
>
> But the specific article (der,die, das) is not that often used for
> descriptions of groups.
It is quite acceptable as a phrase.
>
> You are right and it is actually possible. But it sounds a little
> strange and people would most likely use other words.
>
> This is - btw- a characteristic of the entire book. You find this type
> of language everywhere in the book. This language is 'stiff', old
> school, complicated and often hard to understand.
It was written in 1921/22, fercrissakes. OF COURSE it is antiquated.
>
> E.g. the word 'Vertretungskörper' for parliament is extremely unusual,
> though somehow possible. But a German would not use such a phrase.
Yes, he would. If he was old-school -- as Hitler, being a product of
the 19th century, certainly was. If he was ill-educated and trying to
impress by the clunky use of posh words -- as Hitler certainly was.
>
>
>>>
>>> So 'Der Deutsche' does NOT mean 'all speakers of German' or 'all
>>> citizens of Germany', but 'one single specific citizen of Germany'.
>>>
>>> This does not include citizens of Austria, since Austrians are called
>>> 'Österreicher' in German.
>>
>> .... unless, as I pointed out above, one happens to be a believer in the
>> political theory of "Grossdeutschland", for whom there is no such
>> distinction between a German national, an Austrian, a Volga German with
>> a Russian passport, or a Siebenbürger German with a Rumanian passport.
>> To them, they are all "German". The believer in Grossdeutschland is not
>> really concerned with nationalities, and far more with the German "race"
>> ... which may be spread out over many different nations.
>
>
> The idea of a German race is Nazi crap. In fact the people that speak
> German are not very related in an ethnic sense. Germans are composed of
> people from various directions, like Kelts, Frisians, Slavic people,
> Scandinavians, Romanic tribes, Anglo-Saxons, Swabians, Francs and so forth.
>
> 'German' stems from the Romans and they used that name for a couple of
> tribes, that have never settled in what is Germany now, like Teutones,
> Goth or Vandals.
>
> The idea of the German 'Arian race' stems from the French Count August
> De Gobineau.
None of which disproves my points.
>
> What the Nazis meant with 'Großdeutschland' was a revival of the
> medieval empire of the Francs.
>
> But the Francs were the same people after which France is named. Their
> capital was Paris and their language was French.
>
> And they were regarded as arch-enemy by the Prussians.
>
> 'Österreich' (Austria) means 'Eastern part of the (Frankish) Empire'.
> Germany was the middle part.
Go look at a map. When Charlemagne died and left his empire to his
three sons, what is now (West) Germany was the Eastern part.
>
> And the entire thing was called 'Holy Roman Empire of German nations'.
>
> There was a coup of the so called 'hausmaier', who took over the
> Frankish Empire with the help of the pope.
>
> But modern Germans are predominantly protestants, not Frankish, do not
> speak French and regard Austria as nice place to for skiing.
>
> The relations to Austria are quite ok. But I have never heard from
> anybody, that he actually wants a unification with Austria. The idea
> would be regarded as twisted.
We are now 71 years after the war. What we think now is irrelevant to
the textual analysis of a work written in 1922. Back then, these ideas
were far from discredited -- they were part of mainstream politics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 20:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4vrp2Fcou4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393953 |
Am 27.09.2016 11:02, schrieb Alex W.:
>>>> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
>>>> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
>>>>
>>>> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in the
>>>> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
>>>>
>>>> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
>>>> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
>>>> address the speaker himself.
>>>
>>> "Der deutschsprachige".
>>
>> No!
>>
>> There is actually no Word for what you try to express. The sum of all
>> speakers of German could be called 'Deutscher', if that is what you want
>> to say.
>
> You claimed that there was no word in German for "speaker of the German
> language". I corrected you.
>
The word does not mean 'person who speaks German' but
'Film/book/newspaper in German language'.
>
>>
>> But it is a very unusual idea, since Germans think mainly in
>> territories. So people from a certain region are named after that region.
>>
>> E.g. 'Pole' means citizen of Poland.
>>
>> If a former citizen of Poland gets German citizenship he is called
>> Deutscher, because Germany ( Deutschland) is a territory. And if you
>> settle there, you are named after this territory.
>>
>> For instance soccer hero Lukas Podolski is regarded as German, even if
>> he stems from Poland.
>
> Podolski, to the German nationalist, was always a German. His
> grandparents were "Reichsbürger", meaning they were ethnic German --
> Schlesier, to be precise.
Podolski stems from Poland and was born in Gliwice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukas_Podolski
"Podolski was born to Waldemar Podolski and Krystyna Podolska, a former
member of the Poland national handball team in the Silesian industrial
town of Gliwice (near Katowice), Poland."
The Silesians were not Germans, but Silesia was a part of the KuK
Monarchy, which was annexed by Prussia.
So the people in Silesia were a mixture of Bohemians, Polish, Austrians
and Sudets. All of these people had been part of AUSTRIA!
The Prussians had conquered Silesia, which did not make Silesians ethnic
Germans.
Similar the Sudets were legal citizens of the Czech Republic and had
Austrian roots, since Bohemia was also a part of Austria.
Gliwice, btw, had the German name 'Gleiwitz'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliwice
It was the town were WW II began.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
(Nazi false flag 'terror attack')
>
>
>>
>> The Queen on the other hand is not regarded as German, since she lives
>> in England, (despite that e.g. Mountbatten means 'Battenberg')
>
> Which may be true for most people today, but it is not correct for those
> who think in racial terms, or those who subscribe to the idea of
> Grossdeutschland. It was not true for Hitler or those who believed in
> his screwy ideology. They thought in terms of culture and language, and
> they made no difference between an Austrian, a Volga German or a
> Sudetendeutscher.
It's certainly interesting to hear about 'Grossdeutschland' from an
Englishman.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is similar to 'English', which is also a language and a
>>>> nationality. So a Canadian would not say 'English' about himself, but
>>>> 'Canadian', even if he speaks English.
>>>
>>> But until very recently indeed, it was quite common for a Briton to use
>>> "England" and "English" when referring to the whole of the United
>>> Kingdom. In fact, this long-standing habit of conflating England and
>>> Britain is at the root of our current national confusion and search for
>>> a specific English identity distinct from the British one.
>>>
>> Great Britten is a union of England, Wales and Scottland.
>>
>> Scotsmen always said they are Scottish. (People from Wales I don't know
>> enough to make a statement.)
>
> Which was not really an issue back when "Mein Kampf" was written.
Yes, maybe. But that was a comment about your statement, not about 'My
Struggle'. You wrote the phrase "...But until very recently indeed, .."
>> It is somehow possible, but 'old school'. Usually you use the plural, if
>> you want to address people from a certain nation.
>>
>> ('Die Engländer trinken gerne Tee').
>>
>> The German article 'der' is more than the English 'the' specifically
>> male.
>>
>> So 'Der Engländer.. ' -meant as an example for a multitude of people-
>> means a multitude of males from England.
>>
>> 'Die Engländerin.. ' means females only.
>>
>> But the specific article (der,die, das) is not that often used for
>> descriptions of groups.
>
> It is quite acceptable as a phrase.
>
Yes, it is acceptable. But you can accept almost everything, if you are
able to identify, what the speaker wants.
But 'acceptable' is not exactly the same as 'well written'.
The book 'Mein Kampf' is more of the type 'acceptable'. To read it is
actually a pain in the a***.
After two pages you get hopelessly sedated and have to leave the book
for an hour or two, get some fresh air and a cup of coffee.
But this is the quality of the German version alone.
The English version is MUCH better written and much easier to read.
TH
...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 10:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e50ghrFhil8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394017 |
On 28/09/2016 04:23, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 27.09.2016 11:02, schrieb Alex W.:
>
>>>>> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
>>>>> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in the
>>>>> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
>>>>> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
>>>>> address the speaker himself.
>>>>
>>>> "Der deutschsprachige".
>>>
>>> No!
>>>
>>> There is actually no Word for what you try to express. The sum of all
>>> speakers of German could be called 'Deutscher', if that is what you want
>>> to say.
>>
>> You claimed that there was no word in German for "speaker of the German
>> language". I corrected you.
>>
>
> The word does not mean 'person who speaks German' but
> 'Film/book/newspaper in German language'.
Schwachsinn. "Der deutschsprachige Zeitgenosse/Freund/Mitbürger" ist
genauso gutes Deutsch wie "die deutschsprachige Zeitung". Beides geht.
Beides ist normales, korrektes, umgangssprachliches Deutsch.
>
>>
>>>
>>> But it is a very unusual idea, since Germans think mainly in
>>> territories. So people from a certain region are named after that
>>> region.
>>>
>>> E.g. 'Pole' means citizen of Poland.
>>>
>>> If a former citizen of Poland gets German citizenship he is called
>>> Deutscher, because Germany ( Deutschland) is a territory. And if you
>>> settle there, you are named after this territory.
>>>
>>> For instance soccer hero Lukas Podolski is regarded as German, even if
>>> he stems from Poland.
>>
>> Podolski, to the German nationalist, was always a German. His
>> grandparents were "Reichsbürger", meaning they were ethnic German --
>> Schlesier, to be precise.
>
>
> Podolski stems from Poland and was born in Gliwice.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukas_Podolski
>
> "Podolski was born to Waldemar Podolski and Krystyna Podolska, a former
> member of the Poland national handball team in the Silesian industrial
> town of Gliwice (near Katowice), Poland."
Gliwice hieß früher Gleiwitz.
Gleiwitz war früher eine deutschsprachige Stadt, bevölkert von
Deutschstämmigen.
>
>
>
> The Silesians were not Germans, but Silesia was a part of the KuK
> Monarchy, which was annexed by Prussia.
>
> So the people in Silesia were a mixture of Bohemians, Polish, Austrians
> and Sudets. All of these people had been part of AUSTRIA!
>
> The Prussians had conquered Silesia, which did not make Silesians ethnic
> Germans.
Schlesien war seit 1742 Preußisch, und damit seit 1871 deutsch.
>
> Similar the Sudets were legal citizens of the Czech Republic and had
> Austrian roots, since Bohemia was also a part of Austria.
>
> Gliwice, btw, had the German name 'Gleiwitz'
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliwice
>
> It was the town were WW II began.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
>
> (Nazi false flag 'terror attack')
None of this is relevant to those who think in terms of culture and
ethnicity rather than nationality.
Even the Federal Republic of Germany had policies along those lines,
accepting without question or test (and issuing German citizenship) many
hundreds of thousands of ethnic Volga Germans, Siebenbürger Germans and
anyone else who claimed German ancestry.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Queen on the other hand is not regarded as German, since she lives
>>> in England, (despite that e.g. Mountbatten means 'Battenberg')
>>
>> Which may be true for most people today, but it is not correct for those
>> who think in racial terms, or those who subscribe to the idea of
>> Grossdeutschland. It was not true for Hitler or those who believed in
>> his screwy ideology. They thought in terms of culture and language, and
>> they made no difference between an Austrian, a Volga German or a
>> Sudetendeutscher.
>
>
> It's certainly interesting to hear about 'Grossdeutschland' from an
> Englishman.
Read some history.
Then get back to us.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is similar to 'English', which is also a language and a
>>>>> nationality. So a Canadian would not say 'English' about himself, but
>>>>> 'Canadian', even if he speaks English.
>>>>
>>>> But until very recently indeed, it was quite common for a Briton to use
>>>> "England" and "English" when referring to the whole of the United
>>>> Kingdom. In fact, this long-standing habit of conflating England and
>>>> Britain is at the root of our current national confusion and search for
>>>> a specific English identity distinct from the British one.
>>>>
>>> Great Britten is a union of England, Wales and Scottland.
>>>
>>> Scotsmen always said they are Scottish. (People from Wales I don't know
>>> enough to make a statement.)
>>
>> Which was not really an issue back when "Mein Kampf" was written.
>
>
> Yes, maybe. But that was a comment about your statement, not about 'My
> Struggle'. You wrote the phrase "...But until very recently indeed, .."
Which is quite correct.
>
>
>
>>> It is somehow possible, but 'old school'. Usually you use the plural, if
>>> you want to address people from a certain nation.
>>>
>>> ('Die Engländer trinken gerne Tee').
>>>
>>> The German article 'der' is more than the English 'the' specifically
>>> male.
>>>
>>> So 'Der Engländer.. ' -meant as an example for a multitude of people-
>>> means a multitude of males from England.
>>>
>>> 'Die Engländerin.. ' means females only.
>>>
>>> But the specific article (der,die, das) is not that often used for
>>> descriptions of groups.
>>
>> It is quite acceptable as a phrase.
>>
>
> Yes, it is acceptable. But you can accept almost everything, if you are
> able to identify, what the speaker wants.
>
> But 'acceptable' is not exactly the same as 'well written'.
>
> The book 'Mein Kampf' is more of the type 'acceptable'. To read it is
> actually a pain in the a***.
>
> After two pages you get hopelessly sedated and have to leave the book
> for an hour or two, get some fresh air and a cup of coffee.
>
> But this is the quality of the German version alone.
>
> The English version is MUCH better written and much easier to read.
Which can be said about a great many books originally written in German.
I recommend you try reading Thomas Mann in the German and then the
English translation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 03:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e50l10Fig8jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394064 |
Am 28.09.2016 02:18, schrieb Alex W.: >>>>>> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the >>>>>> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians). >>>>>> >>>>>> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in >>>>>> the >>>>>> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German >>>>>> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would >>>>>> address the speaker himself. >>>>> >>>>> "Der deutschsprachige". >>>> >>>> No! >>>> >>>> There is actually no Word for what you try to express. The sum of all >>>> speakers of German could be called 'Deutscher', if that is what you >>>> want >>>> to say. >>> >>> You claimed that there was no word in German for "speaker of the German >>> language". I corrected you. >>> >> >> The word does not mean 'person who speaks German' but >> 'Film/book/newspaper in German language'. > > Schwachsinn. "Der deutschsprachige Zeitgenosse/Freund/Mitbürger" ist > genauso gutes Deutsch wie "die deutschsprachige Zeitung". Beides geht. > Beides ist normales, korrektes, umgangssprachliches Deutsch. > Well, yes. But 'deutschsprachig' is an attribute, which you could stick to anything, where you find it fitting. A person requires a noun. So 'Der Deutsche' is a noun. But 'deutschsprachig' is an adjective. You wanted to use 'der deutschsprachige' similar to a noun and as kind of people. This is not allowed in German. There are uses of adjectives as nouns. E.g. 'Der Weisse' (~the white man) is such a case. But 'Der Deutschsprachige' is unknown in German (to the best of my knowledge). ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 11:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e50lemFii72U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394073 |
On 28/09/2016 11:34, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 28.09.2016 02:18, schrieb Alex W.: > >>>>>>> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the >>>>>>> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German >>>>>>> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would >>>>>>> address the speaker himself. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Der deutschsprachige". >>>>> >>>>> No! >>>>> >>>>> There is actually no Word for what you try to express. The sum of all >>>>> speakers of German could be called 'Deutscher', if that is what you >>>>> want >>>>> to say. >>>> >>>> You claimed that there was no word in German for "speaker of the German >>>> language". I corrected you. >>>> >>> >>> The word does not mean 'person who speaks German' but >>> 'Film/book/newspaper in German language'. >> >> Schwachsinn. "Der deutschsprachige Zeitgenosse/Freund/Mitbürger" ist >> genauso gutes Deutsch wie "die deutschsprachige Zeitung". Beides geht. >> Beides ist normales, korrektes, umgangssprachliches Deutsch. >> > > > Well, yes. But 'deutschsprachig' is an attribute, which you could stick > to anything, where you find it fitting. > > A person requires a noun. So 'Der Deutsche' is a noun. > > But 'deutschsprachig' is an adjective. > > You wanted to use 'der deutschsprachige' similar to a noun and as kind > of people. > > This is not allowed in German. > > There are uses of adjectives as nouns. E.g. 'Der Weisse' (~the white > man) is such a case. > > But 'Der Deutschsprachige' is unknown in German (to the best of my > knowledge). Your knowledge is faulty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 20:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e52gpeF1s47U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394075 |
Am 28.09.2016 03:41, schrieb Alex W.: >>>>>>>> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German >>>>>>>> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would >>>>>>>> address the speaker himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Der deutschsprachige". >>>>>> >>>>>> No! >>>>>> >>>>>> There is actually no Word for what you try to express. The sum of all >>>>>> speakers of German could be called 'Deutscher', if that is what you >>>>>> want >>>>>> to say. >>>>> >>>>> You claimed that there was no word in German for "speaker of the >>>>> German >>>>> language". I corrected you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The word does not mean 'person who speaks German' but >>>> 'Film/book/newspaper in German language'. >>> >>> Schwachsinn. "Der deutschsprachige Zeitgenosse/Freund/Mitbürger" ist >>> genauso gutes Deutsch wie "die deutschsprachige Zeitung". Beides geht. >>> Beides ist normales, korrektes, umgangssprachliches Deutsch. >>> >> >> >> Well, yes. But 'deutschsprachig' is an attribute, which you could stick >> to anything, where you find it fitting. >> >> A person requires a noun. So 'Der Deutsche' is a noun. >> >> But 'deutschsprachig' is an adjective. >> >> You wanted to use 'der deutschsprachige' similar to a noun and as kind >> of people. >> >> This is not allowed in German. >> >> There are uses of adjectives as nouns. E.g. 'Der Weisse' (~the white >> man) is such a case. >> >> But 'Der Deutschsprachige' is unknown in German (to the best of my >> knowledge). > > > Your knowledge is faulty. > http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/deutschsprachig The Duden-page says, that 'deutschsprachig' is an adjective. And this adjective is not in use as a noun in German. There exist several phrases with this word. But adjectives require something, to what they are an attribute. So you cannot use 'der deutschsprachige' without saying, what is deutschsprachig. You could say 'deutschsprachige Minderheit in Russland' (German-speaking minority in Russia). You could even say 'Deutsche Minderheit in Russland' (Minority of Germans in Russia). But it gets difficult, once you talk about Germans in Austria. The Austrians speaking German are not called 'Deutscher' (German), but 'Österreicher' (Austrians). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 04:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e50pc5Fjcb0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394073 |
Am 28.09.2016 03:34, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 28.09.2016 02:18, schrieb Alex W.:
>
>>>>>>> The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
>>>>>>> citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
>>>>>>> language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
>>>>>>> address the speaker himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Der deutschsprachige".
>>>>>
>>>>> No!
>>>>>
>>>>> There is actually no Word for what you try to express. The sum of all
>>>>> speakers of German could be called 'Deutscher', if that is what you
>>>>> want
>>>>> to say.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed that there was no word in German for "speaker of the German
>>>> language". I corrected you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The word does not mean 'person who speaks German' but
>>> 'Film/book/newspaper in German language'.
>>
>> Schwachsinn. "Der deutschsprachige Zeitgenosse/Freund/Mitbürger" ist
>> genauso gutes Deutsch wie "die deutschsprachige Zeitung". Beides geht.
>> Beides ist normales, korrektes, umgangssprachliches Deutsch.
>>
>
>
> Well, yes. But 'deutschsprachig' is an attribute, which you could stick
> to anything, where you find it fitting.
>
> A person requires a noun. So 'Der Deutsche' is a noun.
>
> But 'deutschsprachig' is an adjective.
>
> You wanted to use 'der deutschsprachige' similar to a noun and as kind
> of people.
>
> This is not allowed in German.
>
> There are uses of adjectives as nouns. E.g. 'Der Weisse' (~the white
> man) is such a case.
>
> But 'Der Deutschsprachige' is unknown in German (to the best of my
> knowledge).
>
Here we have a case of 'confusion of attributes' of people.
Associated with groups of human beings are certain attributes, which
allegedly unite these human beings into one thing: a people ('Volk').
Such attributes are:
- territory of settlement
- ethnic groups (tribe/people)
- religion
- language
- political affiliation
- culture
Since the National Socialists (Nazis) made extensive use of collectivism
and the term 'Volk' (people), we need to clarify, what was meant with
these terms.
The territory of the 3rd Reich (prior to 1934) was called 'Deutsches
Reich'. It was roughly 50% larger than Germany is today, but almost at
the same territory.
This 'Reich' was named after the 'Holy Roman Empire of German Nations'
and that was the Empire of the Franks.
The German Reich was actually a fraud, created by Bismarck. It was NOT
the Holy Roman German Reich, but kind of 'Opera State'.
Anyhow, that Reich was created in 1871 in Paris and fused together about
50 tiny countries into one nation.
From these Prussia was by far the largest and the dominating power in
Germany.
Prussia sounds similar to Russia, since Prussians and Russians are
ethnically related and both are part of Kiev' Rus.
Other tribes in Germany are Scandinavians, Kelts, Frisians and so forth.
None of these tribes is or was called 'Germans' (or similar).
'Germanes' was a Latin word and was used for tribes, which in most cases
have no relation to current Germany (Teutones for instance).
The German language was widely used in a certain medieval form in large
parts of Europe. (This is somehow similar to the use of English or
Spanish in the Americas.)
Religion is of importance in this connection, since there was a German
guy named Martin Luther, who translated the Bible into German.
This was the first book in wide use in German language and helped to
unify the various languages spoken in the region, which were all forms
of this medieval German.
It also created a new Church (Evangelische Kirche) and that had caused
one of the bloodiest wars in history. This was the so called 'thirty
Years War'.
Among the driving forces behind this war was the Austrian Wallenstein,
who was the leader of the Catholics.
The Prussians were almost wiped out in this war and the area, where
Berlin is now, was completely devastated.
The war ended with a peace treaty and the German territories were
divided into Catholic areas and protestant ones.
These territories were independent nations, duchies, city states and so
forth.
So: no Germany existed.
The largest of these countries was Prussia.
Then the term 'Deutsch' was used by a romantic, nationalistic movement,
which tried to unite these countries.
Austria was an Empire at that same time and France was an Empire, too.
But Germany was not and no country bearing such a name existed.
Germany was just an idea.
In 1871 they fused these nations together, after Prussian lead alliance
had conquered France.
They called this 'Deutsches Reich'.
The Bavarians did not want to join and their King heavily rejected, but
at the end Bismarck had won.
The medieval German Reich required to elect the Emperor. But since the
Empire was a fraud, the election of the 'Kaiser' was fraudulent as well.
Actually the Electors have not chosen the Emperor, but it was more like
'Do you like to have the job ?' .
The Hohenzollern King took the job and became 'Kaiser'.
This of course was a fraud. But not really and people were actually
quite happy with Kaiser Wilhelm I.
But after his death the crippled bastard Wilhelm II inherited the
thrown, in violation of the principle mentioned above.
He was actually the second in the line of succession. But his elder
brother died unexpectedly and under suspicious circumstances.
Wilhelm II did then, what also the Nazis did and spent a lot of money
for arms.
Than came kind of 'terrorist attack' in Serbia on an Austrian aristocrat
and his wife.
For unknown reasons the Germans used this as pretext for an attack on
France.
This caused another bloody war, which ended in the defeat of Germany.
Germany lost a large part of its territory and former Germans became
French and Polish.
KuK Austria lost, too, and was taken apart.
The German speaking part became what is to day Austria, Bohemia became
Czech Republik and Hungary became Hungary. The city Lemberg went to
Poland and Tirol to Italy.
With movement of these borders the population switched also the
nationality and the main language of that state.
German speaking minorities from the former Austrian Empire became
subject of suppression in Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Czech Republic.
This had nothing to do with Germany, since those were formerly citizens
of Austria.
But Germany lost, too, and parts went to Poland and to France.
German speaking minorities there were also subject to suppression and
were forced to speak the main national language.
The Czech population used the defeat of Nazi Germany as justification to
push out the former German speaking Austrians and Germany had to grant
them citizenship, since Germany was occupied.
The Sileasians were forced to leave their territory and had to go to
Germany, too.
But originally the Silesians had belonged to Austria, not to Germany.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web