subject:"Solidarité\!"

On 19 Nov 2015, at 05:41, Alan C <c...@lantic.net> wrote:
> 
> "No. I view them as having deliberately constructed a fake biography that 
> fulfils the scriptures in order to make other people think that Jesus was the 
> messiah."
> 
> You should perhaps read "Cold Case Christianity" By J Warner Wallace. If 
> people colluded to write the Gospels as fake biographies, why aren't they all 
> the same?

I didn't say they colluded.

You can turn the question round. If they're genuine biographies about a real 
person, why aren't they all the same?

B
> 
> Alan C
> 
> -Original Message- From: Bob W-PDML
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:05 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: OT: Solidarité!
> 
> B
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions. 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread Alan C

Simply because the four biographers were not always in simultaneous 
attendance.


Besides, there are plenty of non-Biblical writings of the times to 
corroborate the Gospels.


Alan C

-Original Message- 
From: Bob W-PDML

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:23 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Solidarité!

On 19 Nov 2015, at 05:41, Alan C <c...@lantic.net> wrote:


"No. I view them as having deliberately constructed a fake biography that 
fulfils the scriptures in order to make other people think that Jesus was 
the messiah."


You should perhaps read "Cold Case Christianity" By J Warner Wallace. If 
people colluded to write the Gospels as fake biographies, why aren't they 
all the same?


I didn't say they colluded.

You can turn the question round. If they're genuine biographies about a real 
person, why aren't they all the same?


B


Alan C

-Original Message- From: Bob W-PDML
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:05 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Solidarité!

B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions. 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

Fuck me, Collin, you really are the master when it comes to talking bollocks.

B

On 19 Nov 2015, at 19:14, Collin B  wrote:

>> Since you mention abductive reasoning, apparently without understanding
> what
>> it is, the simplest explanation for the apparent fit between the Gospels'
>> account and the OT scriptures is the one I have given, by essentially the
>> same reasoning that Hume gives for rejecting belief in miracles.
>> 
>> B
> 
> I hope you've had the chance to read Peter Lipton's "Inference to the Best
> Explanation."  I think it's the current standard on abductive logic and
> reason.  All historical inquiry is abductive.  How we deal with the
> artifacts of history can vary from empirical/inductive to just inductive,
> depending on the material and the test.  One example of this would be
> documents.  The empirical approach would be to test the media
> (papyrus/paper/metal/skin/ink).  But verifying the content would be
> inductive -- evaluating its truth value).  How it fits into the historical
> narrative remains abductive.
> 
> You've made an assertion without evidence (that of retrofitted narrative),
> assuming that simplicity == accuracy.  I don't know that such an assumption
> would stand up. Ockham not withstanding.
> 
>> At the very least you have to believe that the Old Testament prophets could
> predict the future
> 
> No, that the future was revealed to them.  This is a matter of externalism
> rather than internalism.
> 
>> indeed, in Jewish thought Jesus is not the messiah
> 
> That's reading the present into the past.  Until roughly AD49 Christians and
> Jews worshipped together.  The big split came when Jews (Christians with
> them) were expelled from Rome.  Along with other persecution matters the
> groups tended to separate.  After that period ended they never did come back
> together.
> 
> Hume is a funny character.  On the one hand he pushed hard for empiricism,
> contributing greatly to the 20th c. empiricism movement.
> On the other hand he understood the problem of induction.  In the end he was
> not able to reconcile the problem of empirical certainty and inductive
> sufficiency.
> Now, if you think your level of epistemic certainty rates at a 0.7 or 0.8,
> I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it.
> 
> What you've presented is a straw man.  It is one that many accept without
> question, but a straw man it remains.
> 
> Faith is not a sense.  But neither is it simply knowledge.  It is a response
> to a presentation, roughly the same as what we call today a "considered
> opinion" or "philosophical commitment."  In Biblical language it is a
> response to historical facts. Hebrews 11, esp. v. 6.
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread P.J. Alling


On 11/19/2015 1:27 PM, Bob W wrote:

-Original Message-

[...]

disease.  I'm pretty sure that most of the camp guards in Hitler's

Germany,

Soviet Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia, thought their actions
were justifiable at the time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY





The skull as a badge has had a long and mixed legacy as an emblem, like 
the Swastika, there are similar emblems  used both Hindu and Native 
American icons that have a very different connotation.


It's only Swaticka's association with the Nazi's that makes it evil and 
so too the skull as a symbol.


I suspect that the Nazi's, conflated the Knight's Templar with the 
Teutonic Knights, and adopted one of their emblems to give some sort of 
legitimacy to one of their organizations.


The skull and crossed bones on a black field was at one time used by the 
Knights Templar as their Naval jack and I expect that if you were on a 
medieval merchantman in the Mediterranean besieged by Pirates I doubt 
that the sight of a Templar Galley under the Skull and Crossbones coming 
to your rescue would have been seen as evil.


Now we associate that particular flag with Pirates.

While the skit is funny I doubt that the skull emblem made any Nazi 
think they were bad.  Many SS men may have had attacks of conscience, 
but I doubt the obsessed over the emblem on their caps.


So I guess what I'm saying is that the Nazi's and anti Nazi 
propagandists, (who really didn't need to do much), ruined everything.




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread Bob W

> -Original Message-
> From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Collin B
> 
> >Simply because the four biographers were not always in simultaneous
> >attendance.
> >
> >Besides, there are plenty of non-Biblical writings of the times to
> >corroborate the Gospels.
> >
> >Alan C
> 
> Let's not overstate our case.  Knarf caught that.
> There are not many extra-biblical "writings" available.  Josephus makes
> mention, but that from a distance.
> And we have only a couple of fragments from late first century NT
> documents.
> 
> But there is a good number of artifacts.
> The "Pilate stone" is a fairly recent find and is the most significant
extra-
> biblical evidence of him.
> That comes despite the Roman propensity to document everything.  There
> are others as well.
> (The skeptical approach being that, without evidence, a thing should be
> questions. Lack of evidence is evidence of lack, so they say.

Rubbish.

> This approach makes the mistake of applying empirical/inductive methods to
> the abductive nature of historical inquiry. )
> 

Rubbish.

> The discussions around the James ossuary continue.  It looks to be
genuine,
> but the arguments from both sides appear inconclusive at this point.
> 
> Even with the small amount of material there is still more on Jesus than
on
> Aristotle & Plato, and many others.

Whether Aristotle or Plato existed or not has no bearing on the question of
whether Jesus existed or not. Or whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, for
that matter. 

And whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant to the question about faking
his biography to fit the prophecies. 

I've no idea whether Jesus, or Plato, Aristotle or Shakespeare existed or
not and I don't really care one way or the other. What matters is not their
historical existence but their thought that does exist and that has come
down to us one way or another, in all of these cases.

To believe anything other than that the biography of Jesus was retrofitted
to look as if he fulfilled the scriptures requires a chain of preposterous
beliefs so extended and muddled that anybody but the blindest of believers
just dismisses it out of hand. 

At the very least you have to believe that the Old Testament prophets could
predict the future, and that the idea of the Christian Messiah as a divine
being rather than just a very naughty boy is real. Then you have to believe
that the Messiah the prophets predicted was actually Jesus, and not some
other Messiah - indeed, in Jewish thought Jesus is not the messiah. 

In order to believe these things you also have to believe at least 6 other
impossible things, and that's just before breakfast, and for each of those
impossible things a dozen other impossible things, and so ad infinitum.

Since you mention abductive reasoning, apparently without understanding what
it is, the simplest explanation for the apparent fit between the Gospels'
account and the OT scriptures is the one I have given, by essentially the
same reasoning that Hume gives for rejecting belief in miracles.

B



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread Bob W

> -Original Message-
[...]
> disease.  I'm pretty sure that most of the camp guards in Hitler's
Germany,
> Soviet Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia, thought their actions
> were justifiable at the time.
> 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Solidarité!

>Since you mention abductive reasoning, apparently without understanding
what
>it is, the simplest explanation for the apparent fit between the Gospels'
>account and the OT scriptures is the one I have given, by essentially the
>same reasoning that Hume gives for rejecting belief in miracles.
>
>B

I hope you've had the chance to read Peter Lipton's "Inference to the Best
Explanation."  I think it's the current standard on abductive logic and
reason.  All historical inquiry is abductive.  How we deal with the
artifacts of history can vary from empirical/inductive to just inductive,
depending on the material and the test.  One example of this would be
documents.  The empirical approach would be to test the media
(papyrus/paper/metal/skin/ink).  But verifying the content would be
inductive -- evaluating its truth value).  How it fits into the historical
narrative remains abductive.

You've made an assertion without evidence (that of retrofitted narrative),
assuming that simplicity == accuracy.  I don't know that such an assumption
would stand up. Ockham not withstanding.

>At the very least you have to believe that the Old Testament prophets could
predict the future

No, that the future was revealed to them.  This is a matter of externalism
rather than internalism.

>indeed, in Jewish thought Jesus is not the messiah
 
That's reading the present into the past.  Until roughly AD49 Christians and
Jews worshipped together.  The big split came when Jews (Christians with
them) were expelled from Rome.  Along with other persecution matters the
groups tended to separate.  After that period ended they never did come back
together.

Hume is a funny character.  On the one hand he pushed hard for empiricism,
contributing greatly to the 20th c. empiricism movement.
On the other hand he understood the problem of induction.  In the end he was
not able to reconcile the problem of empirical certainty and inductive
sufficiency.
Now, if you think your level of epistemic certainty rates at a 0.7 or 0.8,
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it.

What you've presented is a straw man.  It is one that many accept without
question, but a straw man it remains.

Faith is not a sense.  But neither is it simply knowledge.  It is a response
to a presentation, roughly the same as what we call today a "considered
opinion" or "philosophical commitment."  In Biblical language it is a
response to historical facts. Hebrews 11, esp. v. 6.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

>Now we associate that particular flag with Pirates.

I know.  I've been to Pittsburgh.  :-)



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread Alan C

Also Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian & the Babylonian Talmud. In the end it boils 
down to faith.


Alan C

-Original Message- 
From: Collin B

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 5:03 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Solidarité!


Simply because the four biographers were not always in simultaneous
attendance.

Besides, there are plenty of non-Biblical writings of the times to
corroborate the Gospels.

Alan C


Let's not overstate our case.  Knarf caught that.
There are not many extra-biblical "writings" available.  Josephus makes
mention, but that from a distance.
And we have only a couple of fragments from late first century NT documents.

But there is a good number of artifacts.
The "Pilate stone" is a fairly recent find and is the most significant
extra-biblical evidence of him.
That comes despite the Roman propensity to document everything.  There are
others as well.
(The skeptical approach being that, without evidence, a thing should be
questions. Lack of evidence is evidence of lack, so they say.
This approach makes the mistake of applying empirical/inductive methods to
the abductive nature of historical inquiry. )

The discussions around the James ossuary continue.  It looks to be genuine,
but the arguments from both sides appear inconclusive at this point.

Even with the small amount of material there is still more on Jesus than on
Aristotle & Plato, and many others.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions. 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread ann sanfedele


Yup  ... and now my head hurts - I'll go look for a photo

ann

On 11/19/2015 12:26 PM, John wrote:

It's kind of like driving past a wreck on the highway. You don't really
want to look, but you're curious about what everyone else is gawking at.

On 11/17/2015 9:29 PM, frank theriault wrote:

And yet you're watching...

LOL!

Perhaps I'll see if I have any photos to post. But last weekend was so
dismal in the photography department...

cheers,

frank


On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Darren Addy  
wrote:

A thread like this is the conversational equivalent of everyone
marching in wearing their overshoes and opening their raincoats to
reveal that they are wearing nothing underneath. It's not a pretty
sight.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread Matthew Hunt

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Collin B  wrote:

>>Now we associate that particular flag with Pirates.
>
> I know.  I've been to Pittsburgh.  :-)

I hesitate to derail this thread with something as off-topic as a
photograph, but...

https://abattoir5.com/picture.php?/406/category/detritus

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!


British banks financed the south's slave economy to keep the English
mills supplied with cotton. That included mortgages to finance the
south's internal trade in African slaves.

I doubt you even know where the Mason-Dixon line is.

At the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified there were slave holders
and African slaves in ALL of the original states. As the states NORTH of
the Mason-Dixon line abolished chattel slavery within their borders, the
majority of slave-holders sold their slaves south rather than free them.

But there were free Africans in many southern states before the American
Civil War.

Many were former slaves who had earned enough to purchase their freedom
(yes, slaves could earn money & were even allowed to keep their
earnings). Some were the children of former slaves who were born into
freedom. Some of them were even prosperous enough to own other Africans
as slaves.

And in some states of the Confederacy (although not all), free Africans
managed to retain their freedom even after secession.


On 11/17/2015 10:04 PM, knarf wrote:

Whatever or whoever started it, slavery more than thrived once the
Brits were ousted. Plantation owners weren't exactly turning their
backs on all that free labour after 1776. In fact it was a necessary
part of the plantation system in the South; without slaves, American
cotton wouldn't have been competitive in world markets.

The thing about institutionalized slavery in pre-bellum US is that,
unlike most other nations where slavery was legal (and there were
many) slaves could never buy their freedom in the US. There were no
free black persons below the Mason - Dixon Line by law. That makes US
slavery different from every form of slavery before or since.

I don't know that Britain can be blamed for that...

Cheers,

frank

On November 17, 2015 5:03:08 PM EST, "Daniel J. Matyola"
 wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:

I don't know what weed you're smoking but slavery, prior to
England suppressing it was ubiquitous, in human society


I don't smoke.

Slavery may have been "ubiquitous," but it was Britain that brought
it to North America, for the profit of British companies.  That can
not be denied.


Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola




--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!


The Portuguese brought the first African slaves to North America,
followed quickly by the Spanish and soon after by French, Dutch traders.
The English were relative latecomers.

The first Africans were introduced into English Colonies in 1619 by a
Dutch "Man-Of-War" (apparently a pirate/privateer who had robbed a
Portuguese slaver of its cargo). Those Africans were listed in colonial
records as indentured servants. Actual chattel slavery didn't begin in
the British colonies until almost 20 years later.

The U.S. outlawed the Atlantic slave trade in 1808, but left a glaring
loophole in the law allowing the "re-importation" of slaves from other
colonies (French & Spanish) in the new world.

Even after the British "outlawed" the slave trade, banks in London &
Liverpool continued to finance the American slave system.

I can recommend a good book on the subject; "The Half Has Never Been
Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism" by Edward E. Baptist.

On 11/17/2015 5:03 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, P.J. Alling  wrote:

I don't know what weed you're smoking but slavery, prior to England
suppressing it was ubiquitous, in human society


I don't smoke.

Slavery may have been "ubiquitous," but it was Britain that brought it
to North America, for the profit of British companies.  That can not
be denied.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

On 19 Nov 2015, at 19:14, Collin B  wrote:

>> Since you mention abductive reasoning, apparently without understanding
> what
>> it is, the simplest explanation for the apparent fit between the Gospels'
>> account and the OT scriptures is the one I have given, by essentially the
>> same reasoning that Hume gives for rejecting belief in miracles.
>> 
>> B
> 
> I hope you've had the chance to read Peter Lipton's "Inference to the Best
> Explanation."  I think it's the current standard on abductive logic and
> reason.  All historical inquiry is abductive.  How we deal with the
> artifacts of history can vary from empirical/inductive to just inductive,
> depending on the material and the test.  One example of this would be
> documents.  The empirical approach would be to test the media
> (papyrus/paper/metal/skin/ink).  But verifying the content would be
> inductive -- evaluating its truth value).  How it fits into the historical
> narrative remains abductive.

No, of course I haven't read it. That entire paragraph is nonsense and nothing 
whatsoever to do with the matter in hand. It's just chaff thrown out to try and 
distract, and to feed your ego. If you've read the book I doubt that you've 
understood anything in it at all.

> 
> You've made an assertion without evidence (that of retrofitted narrative),
> assuming that simplicity == accuracy.  I don't know that such an assumption
> would stand up. Ockham not withstanding.
> 

Collin, your entire life is built on faith, which by definition is an assertion 
without evidence, indeed an assertion that flies in the face of all evidence. 
The fact that you try, however pitifully and rather touchingly, to provide 
evidence to support your faith only serves to undermine it because evidence has 
to be used scientifically, otherwise it is not evidence. Yet the science 
completely overwhelms your cherry-picked and distorted 'evidence'. You should 
really just give up, declare proudly that faith does not require evidence and 
stop making yourself look foolish.

>> At the very least you have to believe that the Old Testament prophets could
> predict the future
> 
> No, that the future was revealed to them.  This is a matter of externalism
> rather than internalism.
> 

It doesn't make any difference. If anything it is even more preposterous than 
being able to predict the future.

>> indeed, in Jewish thought Jesus is not the messiah
> 
> That's reading the present into the past.  

No it isn't. The Jewish messiah has always been human, not divine.

> Until roughly AD49 Christians and
> Jews worshipped together.  The big split came when Jews (Christians with
> them) were expelled from Rome.  Along with other persecution matters the
> groups tended to separate.  After that period ended they never did come back
> together.

Irrelevant.

> 
> Hume is a funny character.  On the one hand he pushed hard for empiricism,
> contributing greatly to the 20th c. empiricism movement.
> On the other hand he understood the problem of induction.  In the end he was
> not able to reconcile the problem of empirical certainty and inductive
> sufficiency.

Irrelevant. Rhetorical flatulence intended to puff up your ego.

> Now, if you think your level of epistemic certainty rates at a 0.7 or 0.8,
> I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it.

You ought to find out what it means before you ask questions like that. You're 
just showing off your ignorance.

> 
> What you've presented is a straw man.  It is one that many accept without
> question, but a straw man it remains.
> 

It should be easy for you to knock down then, but you don't seem to be able to.

> Faith is not a sense.  But neither is it simply knowledge.  It is a response
> to a presentation, roughly the same as what we call today a "considered
> opinion" or "philosophical commitment."  In Biblical language it is a
> response to historical facts.

So what?

> Hebrews 11, esp. v. 6.
> 

Very appropriate. It's a tautology.

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

>Very well, I'll reply to your previous nonsense and you're welcome to reply
to whatever nonsense I write, and after that I surrender.
>
>B

No.  Either good conversation or I, going back to what I posted much
earlier, acknowledge that it was my mistaking what I thought the
conversation might become.

People of "faith" are not dumb and blind as some seem to assume.  
(OK, I'll qualify that: Many take a non-intellectual approach. But that's
not the sum and substance of Christianity.)
The past 4 decades has seen the rise, or should I say resurgence, of the
Christian philosopher.
There are many, many of us who relish the hard questions.  What we often
challenge in return is certain illogic and assumptions.
We love history.  The Bible is an historical document in that it presents
God as providential over time, an abductive presentation of His presence and
sovereignty.
A goodly number of us dig into philosophy.  For me it is philosophy of
science.  History has meaning and, to borrow a title, ideas have
consequences.

Enjoy your day.  I'll respect your choice.  Only let's be civil.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

>F*** me, Collin, you really are the master when it comes to talking
bollocks.
>
>B

I know I've not said anything inaccurate or false.
Was hoping for good conversation and maybe learn something. 
It started out that way.
Alas.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

>No, of course I haven't read it. That entire paragraph is nonsense and
nothing whatsoever to do with the matter in hand. It's just chaff thrown out
to try and distract, and to feed your ego. If you've read the book I doubt
that you've understood anything in it at all.

I mentioned it because it was part of my studies.
You suggested that I know nothing about abductive reasoning.
The paragraph was intended as evidence to the contrary.
It was an answer.  That's all.


>Collin, your entire life is built on faith, which by definition is an
assertion without evidence

By whose definition?
The separation of faith from reason (including faith from science or
evidence, along with church from state -- they're all the same argument) is
a rather modern concoction.  The history has been covered well by respected
historian William Cavanaugh in "The Myth of Religious Violence."  

What I'm saying here is that I reject the premise.  That definition does not
hold.  It is an invention of the Rationalists in their attempt to unseat
Christian thought from society.  It was a political ploy.  Again, it's
history.  (A most-eloquent summary here:
http://www.leithart.com/2012/08/07/myth-of-religious-violence/ )


>because evidence has to be used scientifically, otherwise it is not
evidence

I run into this all the time.  Jerry Coyne promotes the error constantly.
That is, if something is not empirically verifiable then it doesn't count.
Problem is, a lot of science is theoretical.  Of course the response is that
it's not really true science until it is verified.  It's just a theory.
The other problem is that much of science amounts to historical arguments.
That is, "How did we get here?" is not empirically verifiable question.
It involves abductive reasoning.  Now, if you read Jerry Coyne's "Faith vs
Fact" you'll quickly notice that he makes an arbitrary move to treat certain
historical arguments as empirical and others as abductive.  

Abductive reasoning is used every day in criminal prosecution.  The
prosecutor presents a model that leads the reasonable person to a most
likely conclusion.  Models are another type of science.  Some are
explanatory (as in criminal prosecution) while the remainder serve other
purposes.  All are accepted as scientific and often do not produce empirical
results.

This requirement fails on three accounts.


>It doesn't make any difference. If anything it is even more preposterous
than being able to predict the future.

Again, they weren't predicting the future.


>You ought to find out what it means before you ask questions like that.
You're just showing off your ignorance.
>Irrelevant. Rhetorical flatulence intended to puff up your ego.

If you'd explain yourself instead of being insulting ...


>So what?
>Very appropriate. It's a tautology.

It goes to your challenge that these things are empty and only dumb true
believers hang onto them.
It is history.  We treat it as such.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

Very well, I'll reply to your previous nonsense and you're welcome to reply to 
whatever nonsense I write, and after that I surrender.

B

On 19 Nov 2015, at 20:00, Collin B  wrote:

>> F*** me, Collin, you really are the master when it comes to talking
> bollocks.
>> 
>> B
> 
> I know I've not said anything inaccurate or false.
> Was hoping for good conversation and maybe learn something. 
> It started out that way.
> Alas.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

>Simply because the four biographers were not always in simultaneous 
>attendance.
>
>Besides, there are plenty of non-Biblical writings of the times to 
>corroborate the Gospels.
>
>Alan C

Let's not overstate our case.  Knarf caught that.
There are not many extra-biblical "writings" available.  Josephus makes
mention, but that from a distance.
And we have only a couple of fragments from late first century NT documents.

But there is a good number of artifacts.
The "Pilate stone" is a fairly recent find and is the most significant
extra-biblical evidence of him.
That comes despite the Roman propensity to document everything.  There are
others as well. 
(The skeptical approach being that, without evidence, a thing should be
questions. Lack of evidence is evidence of lack, so they say.
This approach makes the mistake of applying empirical/inductive methods to
the abductive nature of historical inquiry. )

The discussions around the James ossuary continue.  It looks to be genuine,
but the arguments from both sides appear inconclusive at this point.

Even with the small amount of material there is still more on Jesus than on
Aristotle & Plato, and many others.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!


On 11/19/2015 12:36 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

On 11/19/2015 12:12 PM, John wrote:

On 11/17/2015 4:18 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Collin B 
wrote:

It spread from China to N. Korea.  It spread through VietNam.
It is maintained in Cuba


While Soviet style authoritarianism and elitism spread to those
countries, I'm not sure that communism in the Leninist fashion lasted
very long.  China today defies any easy characterization, and North
Korea is sui generis -- a country ruled by madness and personal whim.



Unique in today's world, but not unprecedented. There have been mad
dictators before, as well as mad kings.



Not so unique really, the Khmer Rouge exhibited the same general strain
of madness, in a virulent form.  The madness stems from absolute power.
Stalin ruled by whim as well, so did Mao, so did Hitler, (there I said
it).  Those are pretty modern examples.  Any time you have a system with
no checks on the leadership, a "mad" leader can pretty much wreck
everything, and "mad" leaders arise with depressing regularity.  Those
are all pretty modern examples. Madness is in the eye of the beholder,
and is like a communicable disease.  I'm pretty sure that most of the
camp guards in Hitler's Germany, Soviet Russia, Mao's China and Pol
Pot's Cambodia, thought their actions were justifiable at the time.




As I said "Unique in *today's* world, but not unprecedented."

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have all passed from the scene. The
generals who ran Myanmar appear to be finally relinquishing power
without too much resistance, leaving only the numbnuts running Da'ish,
and I don't think he's really going to be all that long for this world.

--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!


On 11/17/2015 4:18 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Collin B  wrote:

It spread from China to N. Korea.  It spread through VietNam.
It is maintained in Cuba


While Soviet style authoritarianism and elitism spread to those
countries, I'm not sure that communism in the Leninist fashion lasted
very long.  China today defies any easy characterization, and North
Korea is sui generis -- a country ruled by madness and personal whim.



Unique in today's world, but not unprecedented. There have been mad
dictators before, as well as mad kings.

--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread knarf

"Besides, there are plenty of non-Biblical writings of the times to 
corroborate the Gospels."

Name some.

Cheers,

frank

On November 19, 2015 3:57:46 AM EST, Alan C <c...@lantic.net> wrote:
>Simply because the four biographers were not always in simultaneous 
>attendance.
>
>Besides, there are plenty of non-Biblical writings of the times to 
>corroborate the Gospels.
>
>Alan C
>
>-Original Message- 
>From: Bob W-PDML
>Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:23 AM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Solidarité!
>
>On 19 Nov 2015, at 05:41, Alan C <c...@lantic.net> wrote:
>>
>> "No. I view them as having deliberately constructed a fake biography
>that 
>> fulfils the scriptures in order to make other people think that Jesus
>was 
>> the messiah."
>>
>> You should perhaps read "Cold Case Christianity" By J Warner Wallace.
>If 
>> people colluded to write the Gospels as fake biographies, why aren't
>they 
>> all the same?
>
>I didn't say they colluded.
>
>You can turn the question round. If they're genuine biographies about a
>real 
>person, why aren't they all the same?
>
>B
>>
>> Alan C
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Bob W-PDML
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:05 PM
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: OT: Solidarité!
>>
>> B
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>and 
>> follow the directions.
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>and 
>> follow the directions.
>-- 
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>follow the directions. 
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>-- 
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>follow the directions.

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!


On 11/17/2015 9:15 PM, Bill wrote:

On 11/17/2015 1:31 PM, Collin B wrote:

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B 

wrote:

Commumism was never containable


Communism WAS contained.

Dan Matyola


Not exactly.  It spread from China to N. Korea.  It spread through
VietNam.
It is maintained in Cuba.  The Shining Path remains at large.

Of course, one might say that it was not allowed global conquest.
So it is true in a sense. But it was thought/taught that containment
would
strangle it into oblivion.
That never happened.  Containment was ineffective.
It took Regan's budgetary challenge to break up the USSR.  But PROC, N.
Korea, & Cuba are still with us.
And now we have a Marxist president who considers a national reduction in
wages to be normative.


If you think Obama is a Marxist, you live in a world of very strange
definitions indeed.


It's pretty much the standard language of the GOP since the days Roger
Ailes & Lee Atwater were guiding George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign.
Although, since they learned their chops at Nixon's knee, the "Big Lie"
technique seeped into American politics a bit earlier.



--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!


It's kind of like driving past a wreck on the highway. You don't really
want to look, but you're curious about what everyone else is gawking at.

On 11/17/2015 9:29 PM, frank theriault wrote:

And yet you're watching...

LOL!

Perhaps I'll see if I have any photos to post. But last weekend was so
dismal in the photography department...

cheers,

frank


On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:

A thread like this is the conversational equivalent of everyone
marching in wearing their overshoes and opening their raincoats to
reveal that they are wearing nothing underneath. It's not a pretty
sight.



--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-19 Thread P.J. Alling


On 11/19/2015 12:12 PM, John wrote:

On 11/17/2015 4:18 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Collin B  
wrote:

It spread from China to N. Korea.  It spread through VietNam.
It is maintained in Cuba


While Soviet style authoritarianism and elitism spread to those
countries, I'm not sure that communism in the Leninist fashion lasted
very long.  China today defies any easy characterization, and North
Korea is sui generis -- a country ruled by madness and personal whim.



Unique in today's world, but not unprecedented. There have been mad
dictators before, as well as mad kings.



Not so unique really, the Khmer Rouge exhibited the same general strain 
of madness, in a virulent form.  The madness stems from absolute power.  
Stalin ruled by whim as well, so did Mao, so did Hitler, (there I said 
it).  Those are pretty modern examples.  Any time you have a system with 
no checks on the leadership, a "mad" leader can pretty much wreck 
everything, and "mad" leaders arise with depressing regularity.  Those 
are all pretty modern examples. Madness is in the eye of the beholder, 
and is like a communicable disease.  I'm pretty sure that most of the 
camp guards in Hitler's Germany, Soviet Russia, Mao's China and Pol 
Pot's Cambodia, thought their actions were justifiable at the time.



--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

>It's pretty much the standard language of the GOP since the days Roger
>Ailes & Lee Atwater were guiding George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign.
>Although, since they learned their chops at Nixon's knee, the "Big Lie"
>technique seeped into American politics a bit earlier.

Now I get it.  There never was such a thing as a communist.
There never was a Whitaker Chambers, an Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, etc.
Nope.  Never existed.  Just a big lie.
Nobody ever espoused Stalinism for the US.  Not "The Nation" or any other
publication or person.
Nobody ever learned at the (friendly) feet of the revolutionary Bill Ayers,
or accepted as guiding principles "What is to be Done?" or "Rules for
Radicals."
It's all just made up.  A fantasy.  At best it's a fabric woven of disparate
pieces intended merely to incite fear and win votes.
Ya, right.

Part of Hegel's philosophy, reflected in Marx, is that history is
meaningless.
People seem to practice it without knowledge, which also appears to be
meaningless.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-18 Thread Bob W-PDML

On 18 Nov 2015, at 13:09, Collin B  wrote:

>> On 17 Nov 2015, at 19:36, Collin B  wrote:
>> 
 That's the way the Bible works too.
 
 B
>>> 
>>> How so?
>> 
>> The gospels are a biography constructed around the OT prophecies so that
> people would think that Jesus was the predicted Messiah.
>> 
>> B
> 
> So you view them as suffering confirmation bias instead of as a reasoned
> abductive historical conclusion.
> 

No. I view them as having deliberately constructed a fake biography that 
fulfils the scriptures in order to make other people think that Jesus was the 
messiah.

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-18 Thread Collin B

>On 17 Nov 2015, at 19:36, Collin B  wrote:
>
>>> That's the way the Bible works too.
>>> 
>>> B
>> 
>> How so?
>> 
>
>The gospels are a biography constructed around the OT prophecies so that
people would think that Jesus was the predicted Messiah.
>
>B
>

So you view them as suffering confirmation bias instead of as a reasoned
abductive historical conclusion.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-18 Thread Collin B

>At the risk of oversimplification, Lenin was about the Party,

It is easy, and quite common, to confuse function with worldview. Marxism is
a worldview.  Communism, in its several varieties, is an implementation.  So
is socialism, whether the milder US type or the more stringent system of the
Social Democrats.

Having been schooled in the world of the 1960s along with "Imagine" people
think that communism == communalism (eg "there's never been a communist
state") and living for the moment.  They forget that someone has to enforce
this worldview.  Like Pol Pot & Idi Amin.

>If you think Obama is a Marxist, you live in a world of very strange
definitions indeed.

As a matter of worldview I know of no academic, even on the left, who denies
it.
The only denial is at the popular level.

>We should stick to cameras and looking at pictures here and do our spitting
on people elsewhere.

Actually, I live in a world where people regularly engage in heated yet
dispassionate discussions of such topics.
It's not demeaning to anyone.  But I must remember that not all people are
equally dispassionate.
Sometimes these discussions are taken personally and affect the opinions of
others.
My opinions of those who disagree with me are not at all negative.  I hold
nobody in low regard for political or philosophical reasons.
(For that matter, the two most recent philosophers I've been reading were
Marxists -- Thomas Kuhn & Paul Feyerabend.)

Meanwhile back at the ranch ...

I'm thinking of spending some time in the darkroom this weekend.
Did some tool porn of hand planes this fall and it's time to make some
prints.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-18 Thread P.J. Alling


slaves could never buy their freedom in the US.


That's simply not true.  While it was difficult and due to the way 
Chattel slavery was enforced, the slaves owner would have to give 
permission, but there are quite a few former slaves who bought their 
freedom, and later the freedom of their wives and children.



On 11/17/2015 10:04 PM, knarf wrote:

Whatever or whoever started it, slavery more than thrived once the Brits were 
ousted. Plantation owners weren't exactly turning their backs on all that free 
labour after 1776. In fact it was a necessary part of the plantation system in 
the South; without slaves, American cotton wouldn't have been competitive in 
world markets.

The thing about institutionalized slavery in pre-bellum US is that, unlike most 
other nations where slavery was legal (and there were many) slaves could never 
buy their freedom in the US. There were no free black persons below the Mason - 
Dixon Line by law. That makes US slavery different from every form of slavery 
before or since.

I don't know that Britain can be blamed for that...

Cheers,

frank

On November 17, 2015 5:03:08 PM EST, "Daniel J. Matyola"  
wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:

I don't know what weed you're smoking but slavery, prior to England
suppressing it was ubiquitous, in human society

I don't smoke.

Slavery may have been "ubiquitous," but it was Britain that brought it
to North America, for the profit of British companies.  That can not
be denied.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-18 Thread Bob W-PDML

On 17 Nov 2015, at 19:36, Collin B  wrote:

>> That's the way the Bible works too.
>> 
>> B
> 
> How so?
> 

The gospels are a biography constructed around the OT prophecies so that people 
would think that Jesus was the predicted Messiah.

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Solidarité!

2015-11-18 Thread Alan C

"No. I view them as having deliberately constructed a fake biography that 
fulfils the scriptures in order to make other people think that Jesus was 
the messiah."


You should perhaps read "Cold Case Christianity" By J Warner Wallace. If 
people colluded to write the Gospels as fake biographies, why aren't they 
all the same?


Alan C

-Original Message- 
From: Bob W-PDML

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:05 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Solidarité!

B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions. 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

You should really read "Meine Kamph". The invasion of Russia was 
"planned" before Hitler's crew took the German State.  Historians who 
don't read primary sources where the author lays out his agenda are 
pretty much Idiots.


It is a bit like reading Das Kapital, (dense because it's full of 
Ricardian economic theory and Hegelian philosophy, not easy), a highly 
bought book.  Every Marxist has a copy, but most have only read Engels 
Cliff Notes.


I'm not sure if it's the translation of if Hitler was just that terrible 
as an author, but it lays out everything the Germans did during WWII.  
Unfortunately, I don't think Hitler had an Engels...


While there isn't enough time in the world, to read every crappy book 
written by would be messiahs, if you claim to be an Historian of WWII, 
and certainly the Nazis, how can you possibly ignore the very words of 
the dictator of Germany?


Besides at the time Russia and Germany were "Allies".  Churchill tried 
to warn Stalin of Hitler's duplicity, but Stalin didn't believe him.  
There was no reason for Hitler to attack Russia as a method of getting 
England out of the War, (confirmed by KGB files released after the fall 
of the Soviet Union, before Russia started keeping secrets again), 
Russia wasn't going to be coming to the aid of Great Britain.


Hitler had a time table, the fact that the English failed to capitulate 
was getting in the way.  His intelligence people knew that the Russian 
Army would recover from Stalin's purges, eventually, and he wanted to 
strike before they were ready. England was contained in it's island 
redoubt, and while they could be annoying to a land power like Germany 
there was no way they were returning to Continental Europe without 
massive help.


Sometimes the conventional wisdom is true, and revisionism, is just as 
stupid as it sounds.




On 11/15/2015 9:11 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

knarf wrote:


Wow, Mark!  I was totally making that shit up as I went along. Who knew it was 
actually accurate?

;-)

By the way, there *is* disagreement among historians about whether the
goal of Hitler's invasion of Russia was the destruction of the
communist Soviet Union itself or to convince Britain to surrender by
removing the USSR as a potential ally. There are good cases made on
both sides.



On November 15, 2015 8:42:04 PM EST, Mark Roberts  
wrote:

Paul Stenquist wrote:


Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize

Hitler's goals. That's laughable.

??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
various books on the war may be better for a casual read ? try The
"Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
  



--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:24 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:
> You should really read "Meine Kamph".

If you mean Mein Kampf, I read it in college, and well as Zweites Buch.

"Churchill tried to warn Stalin of Hitler's duplicity, but Stalin
didn't believe him."
I'm not sure that is entirely true.  Stalin certainly intended to
attack Hitler at some point, but hoped that he could wait until the
Allies had weakened the German Armies enough to make the Red Army's
task more achievable.  Like everyone else, he did not think that
France would collapse so quickly that the British were not able to
mount an offensive in Western Europe until years later.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Ignoring the Japanese, and their wish for an expanded empire, in that 
invasion, is well, foolish.  I'm pretty sure that the American component 
in that had more to do with keeping an eye on the Japanese, who even 
then threatened western and by extension US trade concessions, (need I 
say in China), leaves out a large part of history.  The Japanese had by 
far the largest expeditionary force in Russia.


Yes, England ruined the world, for 150 years England suppressed the 
slave trade, enforced freedom of the seas, kept the Hindus and Muslims 
in India from killing each other. (and made Suttee, illegal, as well as 
protecting lower castes from some level of persecution), managed to 
pretty much stamp out cannibalism in New Guinea.  Were the English 
saints?*  Hell no, but the world would have been ruined in other ways, 
because, well people are pretty miserable to other people in general.


*Imagine if you will the German, (let alone Nazi), response to Gandhi.  
While the Germans were far from the brutes portrayed in Allied 
propaganda during WWI, they were brutally efferent.  To prosecute their 
war against France in 1914 they invaded a neutral country or two, and 
fought with the same brutal efficiency that was used against the French 
and English, their actual foes.  In WWII Germany was actually worse in 
many ways than the WWI propaganda painted them. so I guess you live down 
to what people think of you.  Once again people are awful.


On 11/16/2015 9:43 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Bill  wrote:

Mark and Frank. You are talking to Americans about a subject they mostly
know about from history books written by Americans and for American
consumption.
To be kind, their views are somewhat propagandized.

We have mostly been "propagandized" by the Anglo-centric nature of our
history books and news media.  The Brits get us into trouble (like
joining their invasion of Russia in 1918-1920, then they blame us when
things go wrong.

wipedia.org/wiki/The_Evil_Empire:_101_Ways_That_England_Ruined_the_World


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread Mark Roberts

Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:24 PM, P.J. Alling
> wrote:
>> You should really read "Meine Kamph".
>
>If you mean Mein Kampf, I read it in college, and well as Zweites Buch.

By the way: I've read (in Ian Kershaw's splendid Hitler biography)
that it's important to try to read the *first* edition of Mein Kampf 
subsequent editions issued during the 1930's were edited to make the
predictions made in the original version (1925/26) more accurate!

-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!


On 11/17/2015 5:03 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, P.J. Alling  wrote:

I don't know what weed you're smoking but slavery, prior to England
suppressing it was ubiquitous, in human society

I don't smoke.

Slavery may have been "ubiquitous," but it was Britain that brought it
to North America, for the profit of British companies.  That can not
be denied.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



The Spanish brought slavery to the Caribbean, and Florida, and maybe the 
Mississippi 100 years before the British had American colonies, first 
the they enslaved the natives, and then when they died off from European 
diseases, they imported Africans.


Before you tell me it was the British who supplied them, I'd like to 
point out that by mercantile theory, which every country followed, trade 
with one's colonies was carried out in ships belonging to the mother 
empire.


As the British would put it trade with British America was carried out 
in British Bottoms.  Every empire followed the same logic.


The slave trading ports on the coast of Africa were run by the 
Portuguese, Dutch, and Native African Empires.


So Slaves going to French Colonies were carried in French ships, going 
to Dutch colonies in Dutch, Ships, Spanish in Spanish Ships, Portuguese 
in Portuguese ships, etc.


So unless you count Spanish America, which at one time included the 
mouth of the Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, as not being part of North 
America, I think you're wrong.


More importantly the Native Americans took slaves from other tribes.  
Sometimes, depending on the tribe, the captives were adopted into the 
tribe, sometimes not, the accounts of white captives of the Indians, 
reflected this, some tribes made them Brothers and Sisters after a time 
of testing, others kept them in servitude.


Unfortunately the mound builders of the Mississippi died out, probably 
from smallpox, people don't realize today, how awful smallpox is to a 
population with no resistance, before any European was able to record 
that society in detail, but they had huge cities, which were ceremonial 
centers, implying a priestly hierarchy and unless they went entirely 
contrary to the Aztecs and Incas they too kept slaves.


--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread knarf

I don't wish to argue with you (I've already stated that there is nothing near 
a communist state currently in existence, nor has there ever been). We aren't 
going to see eye to eye - ever - so what's the use?

But, Obama? Marxist?

>From Wikipedia: "Marx hypothesized that socialism would eventually give way to 
>a communist stage of social development, which would be a classless, 
>stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of 
>'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'."

I just don't see Barack moving that way...

I do like you, however, and would never think to block you, even though we 
fundamentally disagree on virtually every salient issue there is. Except 
cameras. 

Pentaxians unite, you have nothing to lose but your, your... well, I can't 
think of a humorous rhyme with "chains".   :-)

Cheers,

frank the lefty



On November 17, 2015 2:31:46 PM EST, Collin B  wrote:
>>On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B brendemuehl.net>
>wrote:
>>> Commumism was never containable
>>
>>Communism WAS contained.
>>
>>Dan Matyola
>
>Not exactly.  It spread from China to N. Korea.  It spread through
>VietNam.
>It is maintained in Cuba.  The Shining Path remains at large.
>
>Of course, one might say that it was not allowed global conquest.
>So it is true in a sense. But it was thought/taught that containment
>would
>strangle it into oblivion.
>That never happened.  Containment was ineffective.
>It took Regan's budgetary challenge to break up the USSR.  But PROC, N.
>Korea, & Cuba are still with us.
>And now we have a Marxist president who considers a national reduction
>in
>wages to be normative.
>And "The Nation" continues to publish from its historic (yes, this is
>true)
>Stalinist frame of mind.
>(That wrag includes Sid Blumenthal, advisor to Hillary. Same frame of
>mind
>and a working relationship.)
>
>Anyway, I think I'm blocked by a number of PDMLers here wrt my
>perspectives.
>Alas.
>Hope there's no hard feelings.  It's not like I'm speaking Nikonese or
>Canonese in our midst ...
>
>Collin

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread Bob W-PDML

On 17 Nov 2015, at 17:54, Mark Roberts  wrote:
> 
> Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:24 PM, P.J. Alling
>>  wrote:
>>> You should really read "Meine Kamph".
>> 
>> If you mean Mein Kampf, I read it in college, and well as Zweites Buch.
> 
> By the way: I've read (in Ian Kershaw's splendid Hitler biography)
> that it's important to try to read the *first* edition of Mein Kampf —
> subsequent editions issued during the 1930's were edited to make the
> predictions made in the original version (1925/26) more accurate!
> 

That's the way the Bible works too.

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

>Pentaxians unite, you have nothing to lose but your, your... well, I can't
think of a humorous rhyme with "chains".   :-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>frank the lefty

That would work in the days when cameras had those nice stainless steel
round chains.  So much class back then.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

>On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B 
wrote:
>> Commumism was never containable
>
>Communism WAS contained.
>
>Dan Matyola

Not exactly.  It spread from China to N. Korea.  It spread through VietNam.
It is maintained in Cuba.  The Shining Path remains at large.

Of course, one might say that it was not allowed global conquest.
So it is true in a sense. But it was thought/taught that containment would
strangle it into oblivion.
That never happened.  Containment was ineffective.
It took Regan's budgetary challenge to break up the USSR.  But PROC, N.
Korea, & Cuba are still with us.
And now we have a Marxist president who considers a national reduction in
wages to be normative.
And "The Nation" continues to publish from its historic (yes, this is true)
Stalinist frame of mind.
(That wrag includes Sid Blumenthal, advisor to Hillary. Same frame of mind
and a working relationship.)

Anyway, I think I'm blocked by a number of PDMLers here wrt my perspectives.
Alas.
Hope there's no hard feelings.  It's not like I'm speaking Nikonese or
Canonese in our midst ...

Collin

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

There's never been a Santa Claus state for the same reason.  The 
trappings of a Communist state can however be used to keep an Elite in 
power, until the contradictions become to great for even those 
benefiting to ignore.  Don't feel bad, Capitalism doesn't actually exist 
either, Marx invented it to give a name to his bogy man.  (I have read 
parts of Das Kapital), reading the whole thing would require more Scotch 
that exists in all of Scotland).


On 11/16/2015 9:00 PM, knarf wrote:

There has never been a communist state. After the Revolution the USSR may have 
been moving that way but never got there. However close they may (or may not 
have) come, they were completely derailed by Stalin.

The USSR and every other so-called communist state were actually 
State-Capitalists. That is they were in fact capitalist however the means of 
production were owned by the state rather than individuals or corporations (who 
are, as we all know, legal persons).

So whatever happened to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states, it wasn't 
happening to commies.

Cheers,

frank

On November 16, 2015 6:23:56 PM EST, Mark Roberts  
wrote:

Daniel J. Matyola wrote:


On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B 

wrote:

Commumism was never containable

Communism WAS contained.

I don't know if it was contained so much as left to implode by itself.




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

>That's the way the Bible works too.
>
>B

How so?


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread knarf

"They called themselves Communists."

The former East Germany called themselves the German Democratic Republic. 
What's in a name?

"Lenin was the orthodox Marxist."

At the risk of oversimplification, Lenin was about the Party, and centralizing 
power. I suspect he may have considered that a necessary interim measure but he 
did that. There's a reason they called it "Marxist-Leninist"; he changed 
marxism .

"Mao was an orthodox Marxist."

He was just an evil totalitarian dictator. He used Marxist-Leninist jargon and 
catch words but he was basically a Stalinist. 

"Stalin maintained Lenin's system." 

See Mao. I mean, he basically wrested power from Lenin (Trotsky was the heir 
apparent) and turned the USSR into a full-on State-Capitalist economy. He was 
an evil dictator. He was all about power. He turned himself into a god, a cult 
leader to be worshipped and adored. There was nothing of a communist about him.

Look, I said earlier that there's never been a communist state. And I don't 
think there ever will be one. I think that one of the downfalls (perhaps the 
biggest one) of communism is that it almost necessarily devolves into a 
dictatorship, with a single-party, totalitarian government led by a 
megalomaniac who tries to turn himself into a god.

It's happened enough times, hasn't it?

I'm a lefty but I'm no commie. Nice concept, nice theory but it'll never fly. 
The vacuum left during or after the revolution will always leave the opening 
for the above to occur. Always.

But whatever criticisms you have of the evil regimes you mention, they're evil 
for reasons other than their putative communism.

Cheers,

frank

On November 17, 2015 2:50:01 PM EST, Collin B  wrote:
>>There has never been a communist state. After the Revolution the USSR
>may
>have been moving that way but never got there. However close they may
>(or
>may not have) come, 
>>they were completely derailed by Stalin. 
>>
>>The USSR and every other so-called communist state were actually
>State-Capitalists. That is they were in fact capitalist however the
>means of
>production were owned by 
>>the state rather than individuals or corporations (who are, as we all
>know,
>legal persons).
>>
>>So whatever happened to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states, it wasn't
>happening to commies. 
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>frank
>
>In the West we like to over-simplify or idealize communism as some sort
>of
>communalism.
>Nothing could be further from the truth, John Lennon not being excused
>for
>his "imagination."
>
>They called themselves Communists.  Lenin was the orthodox Marxist.  
>Mao was an orthodox Marxist.  Stalin maintained Lenin's system.
>Stalin killed 60M.  Mao, at least 30M.  Hitler, 10M+
>Those three killed about 1/20 of the world population of the mid 20th
>c.
>Communism is about power.  It was never about a touchy-feely community.
>
>Reading Marx' "Capital" he did not entirely oppose the existence of
>capital
>but the system under which it was managed.
>
>
>We just don't learn from history.  Malthus was foundational to Marx.
>Though his predictions have failed on numerous occasions they are still
>being proposed as workable (eg, Sanger & the modern green movement).
>Lenin just couldn't make things work.  (To his credit, though, he did
>clamp
>down on organized crime.)
>Look at PROC & Cuba? They survive because the feed off capitalism, just
>as
>do other forms of socialism.
>N. Korea, on the other hand, presents the world something much closer
>to
>Stalin's USSR.

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread Darren Addy

A thread like this is the conversational equivalent of everyone
marching in wearing their overshoes and opening their raincoats to
reveal that they are wearing nothing underneath. It's not a pretty
sight.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM, knarf  wrote:
> "They called themselves Communists."
>
> The former East Germany called themselves the German Democratic Republic. 
> What's in a name?
>
> "Lenin was the orthodox Marxist."
>
> At the risk of oversimplification, Lenin was about the Party, and 
> centralizing power. I suspect he may have considered that a necessary interim 
> measure but he did that. There's a reason they called it "Marxist-Leninist"; 
> he changed marxism .
>
> "Mao was an orthodox Marxist."
>
> He was just an evil totalitarian dictator. He used Marxist-Leninist jargon 
> and catch words but he was basically a Stalinist.
>
> "Stalin maintained Lenin's system."
>
> See Mao. I mean, he basically wrested power from Lenin (Trotsky was the heir 
> apparent) and turned the USSR into a full-on State-Capitalist economy. He was 
> an evil dictator. He was all about power. He turned himself into a god, a 
> cult leader to be worshipped and adored. There was nothing of a communist 
> about him.
>
> Look, I said earlier that there's never been a communist state. And I don't 
> think there ever will be one. I think that one of the downfalls (perhaps the 
> biggest one) of communism is that it almost necessarily devolves into a 
> dictatorship, with a single-party, totalitarian government led by a 
> megalomaniac who tries to turn himself into a god.
>
> It's happened enough times, hasn't it?
>
> I'm a lefty but I'm no commie. Nice concept, nice theory but it'll never fly. 
> The vacuum left during or after the revolution will always leave the opening 
> for the above to occur. Always.
>
> But whatever criticisms you have of the evil regimes you mention, they're 
> evil for reasons other than their putative communism.
>
> Cheers,
>
> frank
>
>
>
> On November 17, 2015 2:50:01 PM EST, Collin B  wrote:
>>>There has never been a communist state. After the Revolution the USSR
>>may
>>have been moving that way but never got there. However close they may
>>(or
>>may not have) come,
>>>they were completely derailed by Stalin.
>>>
>>>The USSR and every other so-called communist state were actually
>>State-Capitalists. That is they were in fact capitalist however the
>>means of
>>production were owned by
>>>the state rather than individuals or corporations (who are, as we all
>>know,
>>legal persons).
>>>
>>>So whatever happened to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states, it wasn't
>>happening to commies.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>frank
>>
>>In the West we like to over-simplify or idealize communism as some sort
>>of
>>communalism.
>>Nothing could be further from the truth, John Lennon not being excused
>>for
>>his "imagination."
>>
>>They called themselves Communists.  Lenin was the orthodox Marxist.
>>Mao was an orthodox Marxist.  Stalin maintained Lenin's system.
>>Stalin killed 60M.  Mao, at least 30M.  Hitler, 10M+
>>Those three killed about 1/20 of the world population of the mid 20th
>>c.
>>Communism is about power.  It was never about a touchy-feely community.
>>
>>Reading Marx' "Capital" he did not entirely oppose the existence of
>>capital
>>but the system under which it was managed.
>>
>>
>>We just don't learn from history.  Malthus was foundational to Marx.
>>Though his predictions have failed on numerous occasions they are still
>>being proposed as workable (eg, Sanger & the modern green movement).
>>Lenin just couldn't make things work.  (To his credit, though, he did
>>clamp
>>down on organized crime.)
>>Look at PROC & Cuba? They survive because the feed off capitalism, just
>>as
>>do other forms of socialism.
>>N. Korea, on the other hand, presents the world something much closer
>>to
>>Stalin's USSR.
>
> --
>
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread Bill


On 11/17/2015 1:31 PM, Collin B wrote:

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B 

wrote:

Commumism was never containable


Communism WAS contained.

Dan Matyola


Not exactly.  It spread from China to N. Korea.  It spread through VietNam.
It is maintained in Cuba.  The Shining Path remains at large.

Of course, one might say that it was not allowed global conquest.
So it is true in a sense. But it was thought/taught that containment would
strangle it into oblivion.
That never happened.  Containment was ineffective.
It took Regan's budgetary challenge to break up the USSR.  But PROC, N.
Korea, & Cuba are still with us.
And now we have a Marxist president who considers a national reduction in
wages to be normative.


If you think Obama is a Marxist, you live in a world of very strange 
definitions indeed.

Did you not hear his State of the Union address lest year?
Neither did I, but apparently in it he called on congress to raise the 
national minimum wage ( a move I am sure raised a hew and cry among 
Republicans).


However, if one is a staunch Capitalist, then a decrease in wages would 
be normative in the USA, since wages are part of a supply and demand 
system. Right now, wages are being pushed down by foreign competition 
and a lack of demand for labor in the USA.


In this case, we are now feeling the effects of Richard Nixon and Sam 
Walton.



And "The Nation" continues to publish from its historic (yes, this is true)
Stalinist frame of mind.
(That wrag includes Sid Blumenthal, advisor to Hillary. Same frame of mind
and a working relationship.)

Anyway, I think I'm blocked by a number of PDMLers here wrt my perspectives.


Nope, but that doesn't change that your perspective is coloured by a 
rather rank political perspective, and is quite wrong.



Alas.
Hope there's no hard feelings.  It's not like I'm speaking Nikonese or
Canonese in our midst ...



Bilingual. I speak Pentax and Fuji.

bill


Collin





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread Bill


On 11/17/2015 3:14 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:57 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:

England suppressed the slave trade


Only after they firmly established slavery in their American colonies,
leaving the US with that enormous problem that caused the bloodiest
war of all time.  As usual, after they created the problem, they
assumed a posture of superiority regarding the effects of their
actions.


By the time the Civil War came along, Americans had been in charge of 
their own fortunes long enough that you can't blame the British for that 
one.
I think you should try to stick to facts and stay away from the ugly 
rhetoric.


Actually, this is probably the last place for this sort of discussion. 
I'm on a couple of US centric political forums. I'm there because it 
appeals to the inner fourteen year old part of me that still likes the 
Three Stooges to watch the train wreck that American politics is becoming.


We should stick to cameras and looking at pictures here and do our 
spitting on people elsewhere.


bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread frank theriault

And yet you're watching...

LOL!

Perhaps I'll see if I have any photos to post. But last weekend was so
dismal in the photography department...

cheers,

frank


On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> A thread like this is the conversational equivalent of everyone
> marching in wearing their overshoes and opening their raincoats to
> reveal that they are wearing nothing underneath. It's not a pretty
> sight.
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM, knarf  wrote:
>> "They called themselves Communists."
>>
>> The former East Germany called themselves the German Democratic Republic. 
>> What's in a name?
>>
>> "Lenin was the orthodox Marxist."
>>
>> At the risk of oversimplification, Lenin was about the Party, and 
>> centralizing power. I suspect he may have considered that a necessary 
>> interim measure but he did that. There's a reason they called it 
>> "Marxist-Leninist"; he changed marxism .
>>
>> "Mao was an orthodox Marxist."
>>
>> He was just an evil totalitarian dictator. He used Marxist-Leninist jargon 
>> and catch words but he was basically a Stalinist.
>>
>> "Stalin maintained Lenin's system."
>>
>> See Mao. I mean, he basically wrested power from Lenin (Trotsky was the heir 
>> apparent) and turned the USSR into a full-on State-Capitalist economy. He 
>> was an evil dictator. He was all about power. He turned himself into a god, 
>> a cult leader to be worshipped and adored. There was nothing of a communist 
>> about him.
>>
>> Look, I said earlier that there's never been a communist state. And I don't 
>> think there ever will be one. I think that one of the downfalls (perhaps the 
>> biggest one) of communism is that it almost necessarily devolves into a 
>> dictatorship, with a single-party, totalitarian government led by a 
>> megalomaniac who tries to turn himself into a god.
>>
>> It's happened enough times, hasn't it?
>>
>> I'm a lefty but I'm no commie. Nice concept, nice theory but it'll never 
>> fly. The vacuum left during or after the revolution will always leave the 
>> opening for the above to occur. Always.
>>
>> But whatever criticisms you have of the evil regimes you mention, they're 
>> evil for reasons other than their putative communism.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> frank
>>
>>
>>
>> On November 17, 2015 2:50:01 PM EST, Collin B  
>> wrote:
There has never been a communist state. After the Revolution the USSR
>>>may
>>>have been moving that way but never got there. However close they may
>>>(or
>>>may not have) come,
they were completely derailed by Stalin.

The USSR and every other so-called communist state were actually
>>>State-Capitalists. That is they were in fact capitalist however the
>>>means of
>>>production were owned by
the state rather than individuals or corporations (who are, as we all
>>>know,
>>>legal persons).

So whatever happened to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states, it wasn't
>>>happening to commies.

Cheers,

frank
>>>
>>>In the West we like to over-simplify or idealize communism as some sort
>>>of
>>>communalism.
>>>Nothing could be further from the truth, John Lennon not being excused
>>>for
>>>his "imagination."
>>>
>>>They called themselves Communists.  Lenin was the orthodox Marxist.
>>>Mao was an orthodox Marxist.  Stalin maintained Lenin's system.
>>>Stalin killed 60M.  Mao, at least 30M.  Hitler, 10M+
>>>Those three killed about 1/20 of the world population of the mid 20th
>>>c.
>>>Communism is about power.  It was never about a touchy-feely community.
>>>
>>>Reading Marx' "Capital" he did not entirely oppose the existence of
>>>capital
>>>but the system under which it was managed.
>>>
>>>
>>>We just don't learn from history.  Malthus was foundational to Marx.
>>>Though his predictions have failed on numerous occasions they are still
>>>being proposed as workable (eg, Sanger & the modern green movement).
>>>Lenin just couldn't make things work.  (To his credit, though, he did
>>>clamp
>>>down on organized crime.)
>>>Look at PROC & Cuba? They survive because the feed off capitalism, just
>>>as
>>>do other forms of socialism.
>>>N. Korea, on the other hand, presents the world something much closer
>>>to
>>>Stalin's USSR.
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson
>>
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>
>
>
> --
> Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-17 Thread knarf

Whatever or whoever started it, slavery more than thrived once the Brits were 
ousted. Plantation owners weren't exactly turning their backs on all that free 
labour after 1776. In fact it was a necessary part of the plantation system in 
the South; without slaves, American cotton wouldn't have been competitive in 
world markets.

The thing about institutionalized slavery in pre-bellum US is that, unlike most 
other nations where slavery was legal (and there were many) slaves could never 
buy their freedom in the US. There were no free black persons below the Mason - 
Dixon Line by law. That makes US slavery different from every form of slavery 
before or since. 

I don't know that Britain can be blamed for that...

Cheers,

frank

On November 17, 2015 5:03:08 PM EST, "Daniel J. Matyola"  
wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, P.J. Alling
> wrote:
>> I don't know what weed you're smoking but slavery, prior to England
>> suppressing it was ubiquitous, in human society
>
>I don't smoke.
>
>Slavery may have been "ubiquitous," but it was Britain that brought it
>to North America, for the profit of British companies.  That can not
>be denied.
>
>
>Dan Matyola
>http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

>There has never been a communist state. After the Revolution the USSR may
have been moving that way but never got there. However close they may (or
may not have) come, 
>they were completely derailed by Stalin. 
>
>The USSR and every other so-called communist state were actually
State-Capitalists. That is they were in fact capitalist however the means of
production were owned by 
>the state rather than individuals or corporations (who are, as we all know,
legal persons).
>
>So whatever happened to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states, it wasn't
happening to commies. 
>
>Cheers,
>
>frank

In the West we like to over-simplify or idealize communism as some sort of
communalism.
Nothing could be further from the truth, John Lennon not being excused for
his "imagination."

They called themselves Communists.  Lenin was the orthodox Marxist.  
Mao was an orthodox Marxist.  Stalin maintained Lenin's system.
Stalin killed 60M.  Mao, at least 30M.  Hitler, 10M+
Those three killed about 1/20 of the world population of the mid 20th c.
Communism is about power.  It was never about a touchy-feely community.

Reading Marx' "Capital" he did not entirely oppose the existence of capital
but the system under which it was managed.


We just don't learn from history.  Malthus was foundational to Marx.
Though his predictions have failed on numerous occasions they are still
being proposed as workable (eg, Sanger & the modern green movement).
Lenin just couldn't make things work.  (To his credit, though, he did clamp
down on organized crime.)
Look at PROC & Cuba? They survive because the feed off capitalism, just as
do other forms of socialism.
N. Korea, on the other hand, presents the world something much closer to
Stalin's USSR.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:57 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:
> England suppressed the slave trade

Only after they firmly established slavery in their American colonies,
leaving the US with that enormous problem that caused the bloodiest
war of all time.  As usual, after they created the problem, they
assumed a posture of superiority regarding the effects of their
actions.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Collin B  wrote:
> It spread from China to N. Korea.  It spread through VietNam.
> It is maintained in Cuba

While Soviet style authoritarianism and elitism spread to those
countries, I'm not sure that communism in the Leninist fashion lasted
very long.  China today defies any easy characterization, and North
Korea is sui generis -- a country ruled by madness and personal whim.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, P.J. Alling  wrote:
> I don't know what weed you're smoking but slavery, prior to England
> suppressing it was ubiquitous, in human society

I don't smoke.

Slavery may have been "ubiquitous," but it was Britain that brought it
to North America, for the profit of British companies.  That can not
be denied.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

I don't know what weed you're smoking but slavery, prior to England 
suppressing it was ubiquitous, in human society, everything from 
indentured servitude, to chattel slavery, since the stone age.


The feudal system was, a form of slavery, with the slaves being tied to 
the land.


The word Slave derives from the word Slav, because in Europe most slaves 
came from Eastern Europe at one time.


Western Civilization, Eastern Civilization, Christian, Islamic, what 
have you, they all kept slaves.


The Ancient Greeks enslaved entire cities after they were defeated.

Polynesians enslaved entire islands after wars.

The world was awash in slaves and the English brought slavery to their 
colonies just like every body else. Then they got religion.


Every society had slaves.  The English, were the ones who got religion 
first, and forced the world to take notice, because they had the power, 
and were willing to use it.






England ended that.  England ended cross the African slave trade. You 
know who wrote Amazing Grace, and why?  Look it up.


On 11/17/2015 4:14 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:57 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:

England suppressed the slave trade

Only after they firmly established slavery in their American colonies,
leaving the US with that enormous problem that caused the bloodiest
war of all time.  As usual, after they created the problem, they
assumed a posture of superiority regarding the effects of their
actions.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread Collin B

We don't bat an eyelash often because we (many of us) do now know what is
going on around the world.  It's hard to when the news-tainment industry
filters for its narrative.
International news sources are not all that common.  Few have taken note of
the other ISIS and Al Shabbab actions at the same timeframe in other
countries.
The actions of ISIS, Al Shabbab, Boko Haram, etc., are not retaliation.
Such a suggestion is naïve and devoid of a knowledge of history. (One might
otherwise say that the US was the aggressor when Dresden was bombed.  Yes,
it was wrong to bomb civilians, but the war had begun much earlier.
Decontextualizing any action removes it from its relational significance.)

The Wilsonian policy of global governance practiced by the US is a problem.
Whether implemented by Obama, Bush, or Clinton it has generated a negative
response.  We have been under this progressive policy umbrella for roughly a
century and it has not produced peace.  Commumism was never containable, nor
can Islam be either contained or liberalized.  This is a clash of
worldviews.  And worldviews are often functionally incompatible.  Such is
the case of Islam & western liberal democracy (whether Burkean or Marxist).

Take a look at the middle-eastern allies and strategies of the Third Reich.
Worldviews persist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuNva3j12X0

I don't think that if the Reich wanted to stop at Europe that they would
have considered a conquest and occupation of N. America and Russia.  They
did send subs to our shores as exploratory ventures.  Once they declared war
on the U.S., well, that would seem to have expanded their goals.

All worldviews seek to dominate.  Whether Marxism (of whatever flavor),
Christianity, or Islam.  The suggestion that any eschatology intends to stop
at a border seems ludicrous.  That's not what eschatology is about.  It's
not "anti Islam" to suggest global dominance as a goal.  Read their
theology.  

We likewise export democracy to other nations.  Something as simple (to us)
as providing schooling for girls, homes for orphans, and breaking up sex
slavery/trafficking represents the combined energies of the
Christian-democratic West worldview to influence others and change
governments.  We are all doing it -- expanding our world view to the point
of global domination.  (Even the CIA, working at the behest of whomever is
in the White House, represents that energy.)

I stopped watching the news several years ago.  Read history & philosophy --
understand worldviews and trends.  After that nothing is surprising.

We grieve for the innocent. 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread Collin B

> Are you really Godfrey

My Man!

(Hoping someone gets it)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread Daniel J. Matyola

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Bill  wrote:
> Mark and Frank. You are talking to Americans about a subject they mostly
> know about from history books written by Americans and for American
> consumption.
> To be kind, their views are somewhat propagandized.

We have mostly been "propagandized" by the Anglo-centric nature of our
history books and news media.  The Brits get us into trouble (like
joining their invasion of Russia in 1918-1920, then they blame us when
things go wrong.

ipedia.org/wiki/The_Evil_Empire:_101_Ways_That_England_Ruined_the_World


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread Daniel J. Matyola

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B  wrote:
> Commumism was never containable

Communism WAS contained.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread Bob W-PDML

On 16 Nov 2015, at 14:44, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Bill  wrote:
>> Mark and Frank. You are talking to Americans about a subject they mostly
>> know about from history books written by Americans and for American
>> consumption.
>> To be kind, their views are somewhat propagandized.
> 
> We have mostly been "propagandized" by the Anglo-centric nature of our
> history books and news media.  The Brits get us into trouble (like
> joining their invasion of Russia in 1918-1920, then they blame us when
> things go wrong.
> 
> ipedia.org/wiki/The_Evil_Empire:_101_Ways_That_England_Ruined_the_World

I put the blame squarely on Schleswig-Holstein for all the evil in the world.

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread Mark Roberts

Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B  wrote:
>> Commumism was never containable
>
>Communism WAS contained.

I don't know if it was contained so much as left to implode by itself.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread Bill


On 11/16/2015 4:53 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B  wrote:

Commumism was never containable


Communism WAS contained.



Actually, Russia was contained, Communism, not so much Any batshit crazy 
right winger will tell you, every country but the USA is communist, and 
Obama is trying to lead the USA into the same cesspool.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread Bill


On 11/16/2015 8:43 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Bill  wrote:

Mark and Frank. You are talking to Americans about a subject they mostly
know about from history books written by Americans and for American
consumption.
To be kind, their views are somewhat propagandized.


We have mostly been "propagandized" by the Anglo-centric nature of our
history books and news media.  The Brits get us into trouble (like
joining their invasion of Russia in 1918-1920, then they blame us when
things go wrong.

ipedia.org/wiki/The_Evil_Empire:_101_Ways_That_England_Ruined_the_World

I know this list isn't the place for politics, but as far as the Middle 
East goes, I don't think it's the British that are the problem.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-16 Thread knarf

There has never been a communist state. After the Revolution the USSR may have 
been moving that way but never got there. However close they may (or may not 
have) come, they were completely derailed by Stalin. 

The USSR and every other so-called communist state were actually 
State-Capitalists. That is they were in fact capitalist however the means of 
production were owned by the state rather than individuals or corporations (who 
are, as we all know, legal persons).

So whatever happened to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states, it wasn't 
happening to commies. 

Cheers,

frank

On November 16, 2015 6:23:56 PM EST, Mark Roberts  
wrote:
>Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Collin B 
>wrote:
>>> Commumism was never containable
>>
>>Communism WAS contained.
>
>I don't know if it was contained so much as left to implode by itself.
> 

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

I've typed and re-typed several responses to this, Godfrey. I think I'll send 
this one, regarding your question about whether this violence will ever stop.

These sorts of horrific events cause a lot of soul - searching and looking for 
answers. Unfortunately, in these modern times, these contemplations occur with 
dismal frequency. 

I'm going to preface what I say by stating that ~apparently~ we live in one of 
the least violent times in the history of the world. It sure doesn't feel that 
way, but statistics indicate that. Small consolation to the victims in Paris or 
Tel Aviv or Baghdad, I know...

Cheap, easily - obtained  weapons. Combatants who have nothing to lose and are 
more than prepared to kill themselves for their cause. Very heavily armed, 
militarized nation-states. All of this and more almost ensure that these events 
will continue to occur. Add to that groups who feel that they've been oppressed 
for decades or centuries and the mix is lethal.

And of course what's going on in the Middle East and how The West is handling 
it increase the inevitability that the violence will spill over into Europe and 
North America. Ironic that Hollande screams that the Friday the 13th attacks 
were "an act of war" when in fact France is engaging in warlike behaviour in 
Iraq. 

Over 17,000 civilians died in Iraq last year. At least 1,700 died as a result 
of International Coalition or Iraqi Air Force air strikes. Another 10,000 died 
from unidentified combatants.

Is it any wonder ISIS is leaving "calling cards" on home soil of those they see 
as combatants in their homeland? I'm neither condoning nor justifying these 
heinous atrocities, but they're hardly surprising. 

Wars are going on all over the world. Innocent civilians are dying daily (50 of 
them in Iraq on Friday, for instance). We, insulated in the comfort of the 
affluent West, don't bat an eyelash. We don't even notice. But when the 
violence hits "our" shores it's the end of the world.

These things are going to keep happening. The change required to stop them will 
never happen (see above re: heavily armed nation-states - that includes the 
militarization of police forces). Even if radical change does occur, these 
events might continue. Maybe it's just human nature. Combined with cheap 
weapons.

But we're living in the least violent time in human history...

Regards,

frank

On November 14, 2015 5:29:15 PM EST, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
>Indeed. 
>
>I think of this with the same feelings of sadness, outrage, and horror
>that comes to mind when I hear of trouble in and near Tel Aviv,
>worrying for Boris and his family. 
>
>Can we not stop these atrocities? A century of senseless violence and
>horror behind us... Is there another one to come? What will it take to
>put an end to it all?
>
>I grieve. 
>
>G
>
>> On Nov 14, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Brian Walters 
>wrote:
>> 
>> Mike Johnston's piece today is quite simple and eloquent, I thought:
>> 
>>
>http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/11/to-our-friends.html
>> 
>>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015, at 02:01 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>>>
>http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/gateway/france/fr_1x._V288659243_.png

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread ann sanfedele

Eloquently put... I suspect Godder's "question" was rhetorical, but you
knew that

ann

On 11/15/2015 10:08 AM, knarf wrote:

I've typed and re-typed several responses to this, Godfrey. I think I'll send
this one, regarding your question about whether this violence will ever stop.

These sorts of horrific events cause a lot of soul - searching and looking for
answers. Unfortunately, in these modern times, these contemplations occur with
dismal frequency.

I'm going to preface what I say by stating that ~apparently~ we live in one of
the least violent times in the history of the world. It sure doesn't feel that
way, but statistics indicate that. Small consolation to the victims in Paris or
Tel Aviv or Baghdad, I know...

Cheap, easily - obtained weapons. Combatants who have nothing to lose and are
more than prepared to kill themselves for their cause. Very heavily armed,
militarized nation-states. All of this and more almost ensure that these events
will continue to occur. Add to that groups who feel that they've been oppressed
for decades or centuries and the mix is lethal.

And of course what's going on in the Middle East and how The West is handling it increase
the inevitability that the violence will spill over into Europe and North America. Ironic
that Hollande screams that the Friday the 13th attacks were "an act of war"
when in fact France is engaging in warlike behaviour in Iraq.

Over 17,000 civilians died in Iraq last year. At least 1,700 died as a result
of International Coalition or Iraqi Air Force air strikes. Another 10,000 died
from unidentified combatants.

Is it any wonder ISIS is leaving "calling cards" on home soil of those they see
as combatants in their homeland? I'm neither condoning nor justifying these heinous
atrocities, but they're hardly surprising.

Wars are going on all over the world. Innocent civilians are dying daily (50 of them in
Iraq on Friday, for instance). We, insulated in the comfort of the affluent West, don't
bat an eyelash. We don't even notice. But when the violence hits "our" shores
it's the end of the world.

These things are going to keep happening. The change required to stop them will
never happen (see above re: heavily armed nation-states - that includes the
militarization of police forces). Even if radical change does occur, these
events might continue. Maybe it's just human nature. Combined with cheap
weapons.

But we're living in the least violent time in human history...

Regards,

frank

On November 14, 2015 5:29:15 PM EST, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

Indeed.

I think of this with the same feelings of sadness, outrage, and horror
that comes to mind when I hear of trouble in and near Tel Aviv,
worrying for Boris and his family.

Can we not stop these atrocities? A century of senseless violence and
horror behind us... Is there another one to come? What will it take to
put an end to it all?

I grieve.

On Nov 14, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Brian Walters

wrote:

Mike Johnston's piece today is quite simple and eloquent, I thought:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/11/to-our-friends.html

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015, at 02:01 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/gateway/france/fr_1x._V288659243_.png

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

The goals of the Islamic State are real and historical. Even the NY Times 
recognizes that. It has nothing to do With "right wing" interpretations. 
Liberal whine doesn't apply here. But I'm in mourning, not going to continue 
with this.

Paul via phone

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 1:02 PM, knarf  wrote:
> 
> ISIS or ISIL  or whatever they're called have no plans to "dominate the 
> world". At least no realistic plans that need be taken seriously. 
> 
> It's unlikely they want to expand the Caliphate outside the Middle East and 
> possibly North Africa.
> 
> That map of their "5 year plan" that circulated several months ago in 
> right-wing media outlets and social media is very likely a fraud or someone's 
> pipe dream. I wouldn't be suprised if it were concocted to fan the flames of 
> anti-islamic fervor, much like the Articles of the Elders of Zion in the late 
> 19th century. 
> 
> "World Domination" is attributed to enemies all the time - it happened to 
> Germany and Japan in WWII and neither had such designs. But it's a great 
> propaganda tool to whip up local sentiment.
> 
> Anyway, the point of this, and my last post, isn't to point fingers or blame 
> anyone. Look, ISIS is evil. Full stop. They're killing way more people in 
> Syria and Iraq than the Coalition or the Iraq military.
> 
> But the West can expect more violent bloodshed at ISIS' hands in the future. 
> And when ISIS goes away it'll be someone else blowing up people. We should do 
> our best to stop it. Because it's going to happen, again and again.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> frank
> 
>> On November 15, 2015 12:15:59 PM EST, Paul Stenquist 
>>  wrote:
>> I agree that the world is less violent than it has ever been. I also
>> agree that the US and allies were mistaken in their zeal to remove the
>> oppressive dictators who at least controlled the fringe elements of
>> their world. Fringe elements that have thrived and grown powerful in an
>> environment that was meant to be democratic. But the goal of the
>> Islamic State is apocalyptic. Armageddon and world domination is their
>> historical and oft-stated goal. They are a real and constant danger,
>> and ignoring the threat won't make it go away. 
>> 
>> Paul via phone
>> 
 On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:54 AM, ann sanfedele 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Eloquently put... I suspect Godder's "question" was rhetorical, but
>> you knew that
>>> 
>>> ann
>>> 
 On 11/15/2015 10:08 AM, knarf wrote:
 I've typed and re-typed several responses to this, Godfrey. I think
>> I'll send this one, regarding your question about whether this violence
>> will ever stop.
 
 These sorts of horrific events cause a lot of soul - searching and
>> looking for answers. Unfortunately, in these modern times, these
>> contemplations occur with dismal frequency.
 
 I'm going to preface what I say by stating that ~apparently~ we live
>> in one of the least violent times in the history of the world. It sure
>> doesn't feel that way, but statistics indicate that. Small consolation
>> to the victims in Paris or Tel Aviv or Baghdad, I know...
 
 Cheap, easily - obtained  weapons. Combatants who have nothing to
>> lose and are more than prepared to kill themselves for their cause.
>> Very heavily armed, militarized nation-states. All of this and more
>> almost ensure that these events will continue to occur. Add to that
>> groups who feel that they've been oppressed for decades or centuries
>> and the mix is lethal.
 
 And of course what's going on in the Middle East and how The West is
>> handling it increase the inevitability that the violence will spill
>> over into Europe and North America. Ironic that Hollande screams that
>> the Friday the 13th attacks were "an act of war" when in fact France is
>> engaging in warlike behaviour in Iraq.
 
 Over 17,000 civilians died in Iraq last year. At least 1,700 died as
>> a result of International Coalition or Iraqi Air Force air strikes.
>> Another 10,000 died from unidentified combatants.
 
 Is it any wonder ISIS is leaving "calling cards" on home soil of
>> those they see as combatants in their homeland? I'm neither condoning
>> nor justifying these heinous atrocities, but they're hardly surprising.
 
 Wars are going on all over the world. Innocent civilians are dying
>> daily (50 of them in Iraq on Friday, for instance). We, insulated in
>> the comfort of the affluent West, don't bat an eyelash. We don't even
>> notice. But when the violence hits "our" shores it's the end of the
>> world.
 
 These things are going to keep happening. The change required to
>> stop them will never happen (see above re: heavily armed nation-states
>> - that includes the militarization of police forces). Even if radical
>> change does occur, these events might continue. Maybe it's just human
>> nature. Combined with cheap weapons.
 
 But we're living in the least

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Right. New York times. Like I said, right-wing media outlets...

Cheers, 

frank (running, ducking, hiding)

PS: In all seriousness, take care of yourself, Paul. I'll back out of this 
conversation now as well. You've got enough burden on your shoulders at this 
difficult time...

On November 15, 2015 1:37:07 PM EST, Paul Stenquist  
wrote:
>The goals of the Islamic State are real and historical. Even the NY
>Times recognizes that. It has nothing to do With "right wing"
>interpretations. Liberal whine doesn't apply here. But I'm in mourning,
>not going to continue with this.
>
>Paul via phone
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 1:02 PM, knarf  wrote:
>> 
>> ISIS or ISIL  or whatever they're called have no plans to "dominate
>the world". At least no realistic plans that need be taken seriously. 
>> 
>> It's unlikely they want to expand the Caliphate outside the Middle
>East and possibly North Africa.
>> 
>> That map of their "5 year plan" that circulated several months ago in
>right-wing media outlets and social media is very likely a fraud or
>someone's pipe dream. I wouldn't be suprised if it were concocted to
>fan the flames of anti-islamic fervor, much like the Articles of the
>Elders of Zion in the late 19th century. 
>> 
>> "World Domination" is attributed to enemies all the time - it
>happened to Germany and Japan in WWII and neither had such designs. But
>it's a great propaganda tool to whip up local sentiment.
>> 
>> Anyway, the point of this, and my last post, isn't to point fingers
>or blame anyone. Look, ISIS is evil. Full stop. They're killing way
>more people in Syria and Iraq than the Coalition or the Iraq military.
>> 
>> But the West can expect more violent bloodshed at ISIS' hands in the
>future. And when ISIS goes away it'll be someone else blowing up
>people. We should do our best to stop it. Because it's going to happen,
>again and again.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> frank
>> 
>>> On November 15, 2015 12:15:59 PM EST, Paul Stenquist
> wrote:
>>> I agree that the world is less violent than it has ever been. I also
>>> agree that the US and allies were mistaken in their zeal to remove
>the
>>> oppressive dictators who at least controlled the fringe elements of
>>> their world. Fringe elements that have thrived and grown powerful in
>an
>>> environment that was meant to be democratic. But the goal of the
>>> Islamic State is apocalyptic. Armageddon and world domination is
>their
>>> historical and oft-stated goal. They are a real and constant danger,
>>> and ignoring the threat won't make it go away. 
>>> 
>>> Paul via phone
>>> 
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:54 AM, ann sanfedele 
 wrote:
 
 Eloquently put... I suspect Godder's "question" was rhetorical, but
>>> you knew that
 
 ann
 
> On 11/15/2015 10:08 AM, knarf wrote:
> I've typed and re-typed several responses to this, Godfrey. I
>think
>>> I'll send this one, regarding your question about whether this
>violence
>>> will ever stop.
> 
> These sorts of horrific events cause a lot of soul - searching and
>>> looking for answers. Unfortunately, in these modern times, these
>>> contemplations occur with dismal frequency.
> 
> I'm going to preface what I say by stating that ~apparently~ we
>live
>>> in one of the least violent times in the history of the world. It
>sure
>>> doesn't feel that way, but statistics indicate that. Small
>consolation
>>> to the victims in Paris or Tel Aviv or Baghdad, I know...
> 
> Cheap, easily - obtained  weapons. Combatants who have nothing to
>>> lose and are more than prepared to kill themselves for their cause.
>>> Very heavily armed, militarized nation-states. All of this and more
>>> almost ensure that these events will continue to occur. Add to that
>>> groups who feel that they've been oppressed for decades or centuries
>>> and the mix is lethal.
> 
> And of course what's going on in the Middle East and how The West
>is
>>> handling it increase the inevitability that the violence will spill
>>> over into Europe and North America. Ironic that Hollande screams
>that
>>> the Friday the 13th attacks were "an act of war" when in fact France
>is
>>> engaging in warlike behaviour in Iraq.
> 
> Over 17,000 civilians died in Iraq last year. At least 1,700 died
>as
>>> a result of International Coalition or Iraqi Air Force air strikes.
>>> Another 10,000 died from unidentified combatants.
> 
> Is it any wonder ISIS is leaving "calling cards" on home soil of
>>> those they see as combatants in their homeland? I'm neither
>condoning
>>> nor justifying these heinous atrocities, but they're hardly
>surprising.
> 
> Wars are going on all over the world. Innocent civilians are dying
>>> daily (50 of them in Iraq on Friday, for instance). We, insulated in
>>> the comfort of the affluent West, don't bat an eyelash. We don't
>even
>>> notice. But when the

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Of course I knew it was rhetorical.  :-)

I was just gushing to the list in general, out of frustration and a need to 
vent.

It feels that this sort of thing has been going on for my whole life - almost 6 
decades now. One wonders if it's ever going to stop. And one tries to cope with 
the realization that it may not.

Thanks for listening.

Cheers,

frank

On November 15, 2015 2:14:34 PM EST, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
>Indeed: rhetorical. But thanks for the attempt at a response. 
>
>G
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 8:54 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
>> 
>> Eloquently put... I suspect Godder's "question" was rhetorical, but
>you knew that

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread John


On 11/14/2015 10:01 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/gateway/france/fr_1x._V288659243_.png

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola



I can't speak French worth a damn, but I can whistle the first couple of
bars of La Marseillaise.

France was one of the first nations to speak up for the U.S. after 9/11.
Now is the time for us to speak up for them.

Je suis Charlie!

--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread John


Their stated objective is to restore the Caliphate to their ideal of its
maximum extent in the 7th & 8th centuries.

That includes all of the Iberian Peninsula,; Septimania; Aquitaine,
Midi-Pyrenees & Poitou-Charentes - as far north as Poitiers; the Balkans
to the Gates of Vienna; all of northern Africa including Kenya,
Tanzania, Mozambique, South Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic,
Cameroon, Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and the various states along
the Gulf of Guinea & western Africa; Pakistan, Afghanistan & most of
India & Sri Lanka; Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.

If that's not "World Domination", it's still close enough for government
work.

Whether or not they can actually accomplish all that is questionable,
but they certainly have no qualms about murdering innocent civilians
anywhere in order to advance those claims. And they have no qualms about
killing all the Jews, whether in Israel or otherwise.

There's plenty of room for debate on the best way fight Islamic
Extremism without driving moderate Muslims into the arms of ISIS/ISIL.
There's a difference between Islam and Islamic Extremism. But, I'm
afraid that as things stand right now, Muslims who are not Islamic
Extremists are not yet doing enough to combat the extremists hiding in
their midst.

Recognizing that ISIS/ISIL are a threat and are intent on conquest,
spreading their interpretation of religion by the sword & the gun is not
anti-Islamic fervor.

And the claim that Germany and Japan were not seeking "World Domination"
in WWII is just willfully ignorant. It's right up there with Holocaust
Denial.


On 11/15/2015 1:02 PM, knarf wrote:

ISIS or ISIL  or whatever they're called have no plans to "dominate
the world". At least no realistic plans that need be taken
seriously.

It's unlikely they want to expand the Caliphate outside the Middle
East and possibly North Africa.

That map of their "5 year plan" that circulated several months ago
in right-wing media outlets and social media is very likely a fraud
or someone's pipe dream. I wouldn't be suprised if it were concocted
to fan the flames of anti-islamic fervor, much like the Articles of
the Elders of Zion in the late 19th century.

"World Domination" is attributed to enemies all the time - it
happened to Germany and Japan in WWII and neither had such designs.
But it's a great propaganda tool to whip up local sentiment.

Anyway, the point of this, and my last post, isn't to point fingers
or blame anyone. Look, ISIS is evil. Full stop. They're killing way
more people in Syria and Iraq than the Coalition or the Iraq
military.

But the West can expect more violent bloodshed at ISIS' hands in the
future. And when ISIS goes away it'll be someone else blowing up
people. We should do our best to stop it. Because it's going to
happen, again and again.

Cheers,

frank




--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Germany was not intent on world domination. Hitler wanted a "Grossdeutschland", 
a sort of Super Germany which would include all the ethnic Germans in Europe, 
plus "Lebensraum" - living space, essentially buffer states much like the USSRs 
East European satellite states post WWII. He wanted to defeat Russia, more to 
eradicate communism that actually take over Russia. He'd have never fought the 
Battle of Britain had Britain not opposed Germany's eastern expansion.

This was not world domination. He wanted Eastern Europe. 

Japan wanted to be treated as an equal by Britain and the US. That included the 
ability to deal with "it's part of the world" (Manchuria, China, the Pacific 
islands) the same way the US treated the Americas and Britain treated their 
Empire. 

Again, domination  of their part of the world, not world domination.

I'm rather taken aback that you would say that taking these rather orthodox 
historical views is anything like Holocaust denial.

As far as ISIS, I'm not saying they shouldn't be stopped and I'm not saying 
they aren't evil. What I'm saying is that what we're doing now will guarantee a 
continuation of similar attacks to what we saw on Friday - or worse.

Cheers,

frank

On November 15, 2015 6:17:43 PM EST, John  wrote:
>Their stated objective is to restore the Caliphate to their ideal of
>its
>maximum extent in the 7th & 8th centuries.
>
>That includes all of the Iberian Peninsula,; Septimania; Aquitaine,
>Midi-Pyrenees & Poitou-Charentes - as far north as Poitiers; the
>Balkans
>to the Gates of Vienna; all of northern Africa including Kenya,
>Tanzania, Mozambique, South Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic,
>Cameroon, Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and the various states along
>the Gulf of Guinea & western Africa; Pakistan, Afghanistan & most of
>India & Sri Lanka; Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
>
>If that's not "World Domination", it's still close enough for
>government
>work.
>
>Whether or not they can actually accomplish all that is questionable,
>but they certainly have no qualms about murdering innocent civilians
>anywhere in order to advance those claims. And they have no qualms
>about
>killing all the Jews, whether in Israel or otherwise.
>
>There's plenty of room for debate on the best way fight Islamic
>Extremism without driving moderate Muslims into the arms of ISIS/ISIL.
>There's a difference between Islam and Islamic Extremism. But, I'm
>afraid that as things stand right now, Muslims who are not Islamic
>Extremists are not yet doing enough to combat the extremists hiding in
>their midst.
>
>Recognizing that ISIS/ISIL are a threat and are intent on conquest,
>spreading their interpretation of religion by the sword & the gun is
>not
>anti-Islamic fervor.
>
>And the claim that Germany and Japan were not seeking "World
>Domination"
>in WWII is just willfully ignorant. It's right up there with Holocaust
>Denial.
>
>
>On 11/15/2015 1:02 PM, knarf wrote:
>> ISIS or ISIL  or whatever they're called have no plans to "dominate
>> the world". At least no realistic plans that need be taken
>> seriously.
>>
>> It's unlikely they want to expand the Caliphate outside the Middle
>> East and possibly North Africa.
>>
>> That map of their "5 year plan" that circulated several months ago
>> in right-wing media outlets and social media is very likely a fraud
>> or someone's pipe dream. I wouldn't be suprised if it were concocted
>> to fan the flames of anti-islamic fervor, much like the Articles of
>> the Elders of Zion in the late 19th century.
>>
>> "World Domination" is attributed to enemies all the time - it
>> happened to Germany and Japan in WWII and neither had such designs.
>> But it's a great propaganda tool to whip up local sentiment.
>>
>> Anyway, the point of this, and my last post, isn't to point fingers
>> or blame anyone. Look, ISIS is evil. Full stop. They're killing way
>> more people in Syria and Iraq than the Coalition or the Iraq
>> military.
>>
>> But the West can expect more violent bloodshed at ISIS' hands in the
>> future. And when ISIS goes away it'll be someone else blowing up
>> people. We should do our best to stop it. Because it's going to
>> happen, again and again.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> frank
>>

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread John


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM-E2H1ChJM

On 11/14/2015 7:15 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:

You could try this one instead:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=baje6sbpEXs

B


On 14 Nov 2015, at 21:01, ann sanfedele  wrote:

Yes ...  I wanted to post Edith Piaf singing "the Last time I saw Paris" but 
tech difficulties ensued.
did the facebook flag colors ...

Thanks Bob, Rick, Dan for photographic statements..

How simply awful it all is

ann



On 11/14/2015 1:03 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34822281




On 14 Nov 2015, at 15:02, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/gateway/france/fr_1x._V288659243_.png

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.




--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Okay, Hitler was a good guy. . Nighty, night, Frank.

Paul via phone

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 7:18 PM, knarf  wrote:
> 
> Germany was not intent on world domination. Hitler wanted a 
> "Grossdeutschland", a sort of Super Germany which would include all the 
> ethnic Germans in Europe, plus "Lebensraum" - living space, essentially 
> buffer states much like the USSRs East European satellite states post WWII. 
> He wanted to defeat Russia, more to eradicate communism that actually take 
> over Russia. He'd have never fought the Battle of Britain had Britain not 
> opposed Germany's eastern expansion.
> 
> This was not world domination. He wanted Eastern Europe. 
> 
> Japan wanted to be treated as an equal by Britain and the US. That included 
> the ability to deal with "it's part of the world" (Manchuria, China, the 
> Pacific islands) the same way the US treated the Americas and Britain treated 
> their Empire. 
> 
> Again, domination  of their part of the world, not world domination.
> 
> I'm rather taken aback that you would say that taking these rather orthodox 
> historical views is anything like Holocaust denial.
> 
> As far as ISIS, I'm not saying they shouldn't be stopped and I'm not saying 
> they aren't evil. What I'm saying is that what we're doing now will guarantee 
> a continuation of similar attacks to what we saw on Friday - or worse.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> frank
> 
>> On November 15, 2015 6:17:43 PM EST, John  wrote:
>> Their stated objective is to restore the Caliphate to their ideal of
>> its
>> maximum extent in the 7th & 8th centuries.
>> 
>> That includes all of the Iberian Peninsula,; Septimania; Aquitaine,
>> Midi-Pyrenees & Poitou-Charentes - as far north as Poitiers; the
>> Balkans
>> to the Gates of Vienna; all of northern Africa including Kenya,
>> Tanzania, Mozambique, South Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic,
>> Cameroon, Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and the various states along
>> the Gulf of Guinea & western Africa; Pakistan, Afghanistan & most of
>> India & Sri Lanka; Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
>> 
>> If that's not "World Domination", it's still close enough for
>> government
>> work.
>> 
>> Whether or not they can actually accomplish all that is questionable,
>> but they certainly have no qualms about murdering innocent civilians
>> anywhere in order to advance those claims. And they have no qualms
>> about
>> killing all the Jews, whether in Israel or otherwise.
>> 
>> There's plenty of room for debate on the best way fight Islamic
>> Extremism without driving moderate Muslims into the arms of ISIS/ISIL.
>> There's a difference between Islam and Islamic Extremism. But, I'm
>> afraid that as things stand right now, Muslims who are not Islamic
>> Extremists are not yet doing enough to combat the extremists hiding in
>> their midst.
>> 
>> Recognizing that ISIS/ISIL are a threat and are intent on conquest,
>> spreading their interpretation of religion by the sword & the gun is
>> not
>> anti-Islamic fervor.
>> 
>> And the claim that Germany and Japan were not seeking "World
>> Domination"
>> in WWII is just willfully ignorant. It's right up there with Holocaust
>> Denial.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 11/15/2015 1:02 PM, knarf wrote:
>>> ISIS or ISIL  or whatever they're called have no plans to "dominate
>>> the world". At least no realistic plans that need be taken
>>> seriously.
>>> 
>>> It's unlikely they want to expand the Caliphate outside the Middle
>>> East and possibly North Africa.
>>> 
>>> That map of their "5 year plan" that circulated several months ago
>>> in right-wing media outlets and social media is very likely a fraud
>>> or someone's pipe dream. I wouldn't be suprised if it were concocted
>>> to fan the flames of anti-islamic fervor, much like the Articles of
>>> the Elders of Zion in the late 19th century.
>>> 
>>> "World Domination" is attributed to enemies all the time - it
>>> happened to Germany and Japan in WWII and neither had such designs.
>>> But it's a great propaganda tool to whip up local sentiment.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, the point of this, and my last post, isn't to point fingers
>>> or blame anyone. Look, ISIS is evil. Full stop. They're killing way
>>> more people in Syria and Iraq than the Coalition or the Iraq
>>> military.
>>> 
>>> But the West can expect more violent bloodshed at ISIS' hands in the
>>> future. And when ISIS goes away it'll be someone else blowing up
>>> people. We should do our best to stop it. Because it's going to
>>> happen, again and again.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> frank
> 
> -- 
> 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson
> 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net

Re: OT: Solidarité!

 I've read them. Just a notch below holocaust deniers. More rationalizing. 
ISIS is okay. We're okay, they're okay. Let's all hug.


> On Nov 15, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Mark Roberts  wrote:
> 
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
>> Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize 
>> Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
> 
> ??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
> Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
> Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
> considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
> various books on the war may be better for a casual read – try The
> "Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
> historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
> www.robertstech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Then we'll leave it at that. I found it disturbing, but this has not been a 
good week for me.

Paul via phone

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:23 PM, Mark Roberts  wrote:
> 
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
>> The tone is what disturbs me. I realize that there's no literal holocaust 
>> denial here, but Frank's post suggested that Hittler wasn't really all that 
>> bad.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't detect any of that in Frank's post.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
> www.robertstech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Hmmm...

I think I'll just let my posts speak for themselves, rather than argue that 
point with you, Paul. I don't think anything that I said suggested Hitler as 
"not really all that bad."

In case it needs clarification: Hitler was one of the most evil individuals 
that the world has yet produced. I'm not saying the most evil because one could 
make a case for Stalin or Mao  (each of whom may have actually killed more of 
their own than Hitler). 

But the systematic, organized way he attempted (and came frighteningly close 
to) the genocide of the Jewish people is unparalleled. That alone qualifies him 
as the most evil, IMHO.

I just want to make that point unequivocally. 

Cheers,

frank

On November 15, 2015 9:16:05 PM EST, Paul Stenquist  
wrote:
>The tone is what disturbs me. I realize that there's no literal
>holocaust denial here, but Frank's post suggested that Hittler wasn't
>really all that bad. I agree, it was weird.
>
>Paul via phone
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>> 
>> knarf wrote:
>> 
>>> Wow, Mark!  I was totally making that shit up as I went along. Who
>knew it was actually accurate?
>> 
>> ;-)
>> 
>> By the way, there *is* disagreement among historians about whether
>the
>> goal of Hitler's invasion of Russia was the destruction of the
>> communist Soviet Union itself or to convince Britain to surrender by
>> removing the USSR as a potential ally. There are good cases made on
>> both sides.
>> 
>> 
 On November 15, 2015 8:42:04 PM EST, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
 Paul Stenquist wrote:
 
> Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to
>rationalize
 Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
 
 ??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing*
>them.
 Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
 Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
 considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
 various books on the war may be better for a casual read ? try The
 "Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
 historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
>> www.robertstech.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>and follow the directions.

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

Okay everyone. I declare the Hitler Rule. 

*reminder* ... The Hitler Rule says that as soon as Hitler is mentioned in a 
friendly political discussion, the discussion is over. ;-)

thanks for playing, 
G
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

>Okay everyone. I declare the Hitler Rule. 
>
>*reminder* ... The Hitler Rule says that as soon as Hitler is mentioned in a 
>friendly political discussion, the discussion is over. ;-)
>
>thanks for playing, 

Are you really Godfrey or... Godwin!
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize Hitler's 
goals. That's laughable.

Paul via phone

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 8:07 PM, knarf  wrote:
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I said Paul. 
> 
> Good argument, BTW. 
> 
> LOL! 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> frank
> 
>> On November 15, 2015 8:00:31 PM EST, Paul Stenquist 
>>  wrote:
>> Okay, Hitler was a good guy. . Nighty, night, Frank.
>> 
>> Paul via phone
>> 
>>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 7:18 PM, knarf  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Germany was not intent on world domination. Hitler wanted a
>> "Grossdeutschland", a sort of Super Germany which would include all the
>> ethnic Germans in Europe, plus "Lebensraum" - living space, essentially
>> buffer states much like the USSRs East European satellite states post
>> WWII. He wanted to defeat Russia, more to eradicate communism that
>> actually take over Russia. He'd have never fought the Battle of Britain
>> had Britain not opposed Germany's eastern expansion.
>>> 
>>> This was not world domination. He wanted Eastern Europe. 
>>> 
>>> Japan wanted to be treated as an equal by Britain and the US. That
>> included the ability to deal with "it's part of the world" (Manchuria,
>> China, the Pacific islands) the same way the US treated the Americas
>> and Britain treated their Empire. 
>>> 
>>> Again, domination  of their part of the world, not world domination.
>>> 
>>> I'm rather taken aback that you would say that taking these rather
>> orthodox historical views is anything like Holocaust denial.
>>> 
>>> As far as ISIS, I'm not saying they shouldn't be stopped and I'm not
>> saying they aren't evil. What I'm saying is that what we're doing now
>> will guarantee a continuation of similar attacks to what we saw on
>> Friday - or worse.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> frank
>>> 
 On November 15, 2015 6:17:43 PM EST, John 
>> wrote:
 Their stated objective is to restore the Caliphate to their ideal of
 its
 maximum extent in the 7th & 8th centuries.
 
 That includes all of the Iberian Peninsula,; Septimania; Aquitaine,
 Midi-Pyrenees & Poitou-Charentes - as far north as Poitiers; the
 Balkans
 to the Gates of Vienna; all of northern Africa including Kenya,
 Tanzania, Mozambique, South Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic,
 Cameroon, Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and the various states
>> along
 the Gulf of Guinea & western Africa; Pakistan, Afghanistan & most of
 India & Sri Lanka; Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
 
 If that's not "World Domination", it's still close enough for
 government
 work.
 
 Whether or not they can actually accomplish all that is
>> questionable,
 but they certainly have no qualms about murdering innocent civilians
 anywhere in order to advance those claims. And they have no qualms
 about
 killing all the Jews, whether in Israel or otherwise.
 
 There's plenty of room for debate on the best way fight Islamic
 Extremism without driving moderate Muslims into the arms of
>> ISIS/ISIL.
 There's a difference between Islam and Islamic Extremism. But, I'm
 afraid that as things stand right now, Muslims who are not Islamic
 Extremists are not yet doing enough to combat the extremists hiding
>> in
 their midst.
 
 Recognizing that ISIS/ISIL are a threat and are intent on conquest,
 spreading their interpretation of religion by the sword & the gun is
 not
 anti-Islamic fervor.
 
 And the claim that Germany and Japan were not seeking "World
 Domination"
 in WWII is just willfully ignorant. It's right up there with
>> Holocaust
 Denial.
 
 
> On 11/15/2015 1:02 PM, knarf wrote:
> ISIS or ISIL  or whatever they're called have no plans to "dominate
> the world". At least no realistic plans that need be taken
> seriously.
> 
> It's unlikely they want to expand the Caliphate outside the Middle
> East and possibly North Africa.
> 
> That map of their "5 year plan" that circulated several months ago
> in right-wing media outlets and social media is very likely a fraud
> or someone's pipe dream. I wouldn't be suprised if it were
>> concocted
> to fan the flames of anti-islamic fervor, much like the Articles of
> the Elders of Zion in the late 19th century.
> 
> "World Domination" is attributed to enemies all the time - it
> happened to Germany and Japan in WWII and neither had such designs.
> But it's a great propaganda tool to whip up local sentiment.
> 
> Anyway, the point of this, and my last post, isn't to point fingers
> or blame anyone. Look, ISIS is evil. Full stop. They're killing way
> more people in Syria and Iraq than the Coalition or the Iraq
> military.
> 
> But the West can expect more violent bloodshed at ISIS' hands in
>> the
>

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Paul Stenquist wrote:

>Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize 
>Hitler's goals. That's laughable.

??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
various books on the war may be better for a casual read  try The
"Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.

-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Paul Stenquist wrote:

> I've read them. Just a notch below holocaust deniers. More rationalizing. 
>ISIS is okay. We're okay, they're okay. Let's all hug.

OK. This is getting weird. None of those are even close to being
holocaust denial (particularly in the case of Lukacs, who barely
escaped the death camps himself in Hungary during the war).


>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Mark Roberts  wrote:
>> 
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize 
>>> Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
>> 
>> ??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
>> Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
>> Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
>> considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
>> various books on the war may be better for a casual read  try The
>> "Last European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
>> historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

knarf wrote:

>Wow, Mark!  I was totally making that shit up as I went along. Who knew it was 
>actually accurate?

;-)

By the way, there *is* disagreement among historians about whether the
goal of Hitler's invasion of Russia was the destruction of the
communist Soviet Union itself or to convince Britain to surrender by
removing the USSR as a potential ally. There are good cases made on
both sides.


>On November 15, 2015 8:42:04 PM EST, Mark Roberts  
>wrote:
>>Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize
>>Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
>>
>>??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
>>Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
>>Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
>>considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
>>various books on the war may be better for a casual read ? try The
>>"Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
>>historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Thank you. That works for me.

Paul via phone

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:34 PM, knarf  wrote:
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> I think I'll just let my posts speak for themselves, rather than argue that 
> point with you, Paul. I don't think anything that I said suggested Hitler as 
> "not really all that bad."
> 
> In case it needs clarification: Hitler was one of the most evil individuals 
> that the world has yet produced. I'm not saying the most evil because one 
> could make a case for Stalin or Mao  (each of whom may have actually killed 
> more of their own than Hitler). 
> 
> But the systematic, organized way he attempted (and came frighteningly close 
> to) the genocide of the Jewish people is unparalleled. That alone qualifies 
> him as the most evil, IMHO.
> 
> I just want to make that point unequivocally. 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> frank
> 
>> On November 15, 2015 9:16:05 PM EST, Paul Stenquist 
>>  wrote:
>> The tone is what disturbs me. I realize that there's no literal
>> holocaust denial here, but Frank's post suggested that Hittler wasn't
>> really all that bad. I agree, it was weird.
>> 
>> Paul via phone
>> 
 On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mark Roberts
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> knarf wrote:
>>> 
 Wow, Mark!  I was totally making that shit up as I went along. Who
>> knew it was actually accurate?
>>> 
>>> ;-)
>>> 
>>> By the way, there *is* disagreement among historians about whether
>> the
>>> goal of Hitler's invasion of Russia was the destruction of the
>>> communist Soviet Union itself or to convince Britain to surrender by
>>> removing the USSR as a potential ally. There are good cases made on
>>> both sides.
>>> 
>>> 
> On November 15, 2015 8:42:04 PM EST, Mark Roberts
>>  wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
>> Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to
>> rationalize
> Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
> 
> ??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing*
>> them.
> Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
> Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
> considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
> various books on the war may be better for a casual read ? try The
> "Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
> historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
>>> www.robertstech.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>> and follow the directions.
> 
> -- 
> 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson
> 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

They started it.

Okay, I ~may~ have actually said the word "Hitler" first but they made me do 
it.  LOL!

Okay, I won't say it again. 

Hitler. 

Oh damn. Last time, I promise! 

I like your rule, Godfrey. I'm out of this discussion. Thanks for moderating.

:-)

Cheers,

frank

On November 15, 2015 9:45:28 PM EST, Godfrey DiGiorgi  
wrote:
>Okay everyone. I declare the Hitler Rule. 
>
>*reminder* ... The Hitler Rule says that as soon as Hitler is mentioned
>in a friendly political discussion, the discussion is over. ;-)
>
>thanks for playing, 
>G

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Yes, that's exactly what I said Paul. 

Good argument, BTW. 

LOL! 

Cheers,

frank

On November 15, 2015 8:00:31 PM EST, Paul Stenquist  
wrote:
>Okay, Hitler was a good guy. . Nighty, night, Frank.
>
>Paul via phone
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 7:18 PM, knarf  wrote:
>> 
>> Germany was not intent on world domination. Hitler wanted a
>"Grossdeutschland", a sort of Super Germany which would include all the
>ethnic Germans in Europe, plus "Lebensraum" - living space, essentially
>buffer states much like the USSRs East European satellite states post
>WWII. He wanted to defeat Russia, more to eradicate communism that
>actually take over Russia. He'd have never fought the Battle of Britain
>had Britain not opposed Germany's eastern expansion.
>> 
>> This was not world domination. He wanted Eastern Europe. 
>> 
>> Japan wanted to be treated as an equal by Britain and the US. That
>included the ability to deal with "it's part of the world" (Manchuria,
>China, the Pacific islands) the same way the US treated the Americas
>and Britain treated their Empire. 
>> 
>> Again, domination  of their part of the world, not world domination.
>> 
>> I'm rather taken aback that you would say that taking these rather
>orthodox historical views is anything like Holocaust denial.
>> 
>> As far as ISIS, I'm not saying they shouldn't be stopped and I'm not
>saying they aren't evil. What I'm saying is that what we're doing now
>will guarantee a continuation of similar attacks to what we saw on
>Friday - or worse.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> frank
>> 
>>> On November 15, 2015 6:17:43 PM EST, John 
>wrote:
>>> Their stated objective is to restore the Caliphate to their ideal of
>>> its
>>> maximum extent in the 7th & 8th centuries.
>>> 
>>> That includes all of the Iberian Peninsula,; Septimania; Aquitaine,
>>> Midi-Pyrenees & Poitou-Charentes - as far north as Poitiers; the
>>> Balkans
>>> to the Gates of Vienna; all of northern Africa including Kenya,
>>> Tanzania, Mozambique, South Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic,
>>> Cameroon, Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and the various states
>along
>>> the Gulf of Guinea & western Africa; Pakistan, Afghanistan & most of
>>> India & Sri Lanka; Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
>>> 
>>> If that's not "World Domination", it's still close enough for
>>> government
>>> work.
>>> 
>>> Whether or not they can actually accomplish all that is
>questionable,
>>> but they certainly have no qualms about murdering innocent civilians
>>> anywhere in order to advance those claims. And they have no qualms
>>> about
>>> killing all the Jews, whether in Israel or otherwise.
>>> 
>>> There's plenty of room for debate on the best way fight Islamic
>>> Extremism without driving moderate Muslims into the arms of
>ISIS/ISIL.
>>> There's a difference between Islam and Islamic Extremism. But, I'm
>>> afraid that as things stand right now, Muslims who are not Islamic
>>> Extremists are not yet doing enough to combat the extremists hiding
>in
>>> their midst.
>>> 
>>> Recognizing that ISIS/ISIL are a threat and are intent on conquest,
>>> spreading their interpretation of religion by the sword & the gun is
>>> not
>>> anti-Islamic fervor.
>>> 
>>> And the claim that Germany and Japan were not seeking "World
>>> Domination"
>>> in WWII is just willfully ignorant. It's right up there with
>Holocaust
>>> Denial.
>>> 
>>> 
 On 11/15/2015 1:02 PM, knarf wrote:
 ISIS or ISIL  or whatever they're called have no plans to "dominate
 the world". At least no realistic plans that need be taken
 seriously.
 
 It's unlikely they want to expand the Caliphate outside the Middle
 East and possibly North Africa.
 
 That map of their "5 year plan" that circulated several months ago
 in right-wing media outlets and social media is very likely a fraud
 or someone's pipe dream. I wouldn't be suprised if it were
>concocted
 to fan the flames of anti-islamic fervor, much like the Articles of
 the Elders of Zion in the late 19th century.
 
 "World Domination" is attributed to enemies all the time - it
 happened to Germany and Japan in WWII and neither had such designs.
 But it's a great propaganda tool to whip up local sentiment.
 
 Anyway, the point of this, and my last post, isn't to point fingers
 or blame anyone. Look, ISIS is evil. Full stop. They're killing way
 more people in Syria and Iraq than the Coalition or the Iraq
 military.
 
 But the West can expect more violent bloodshed at ISIS' hands in
>the
 future. And when ISIS goes away it'll be someone else blowing up
 people. We should do our best to stop it. Because it's going to
 happen, again and again.
 
 Cheers,
 
 frank
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson
>> 
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Wow, Mark!  I was totally making that shit up as I went along. Who knew it was 
actually accurate?

Cheers,

frank

On November 15, 2015 8:42:04 PM EST, Mark Roberts  
wrote:
>Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>>Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize
>Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
>
>??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
>Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
>Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
>considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
>various books on the war may be better for a casual read  try The
>"Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
>historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
> 

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

The tone is what disturbs me. I realize that there's no literal holocaust 
denial here, but Frank's post suggested that Hittler wasn't really all that 
bad. I agree, it was weird.

Paul via phone

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mark Roberts  wrote:
> 
> knarf wrote:
> 
>> Wow, Mark!  I was totally making that shit up as I went along. Who knew it 
>> was actually accurate?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> By the way, there *is* disagreement among historians about whether the
> goal of Hitler's invasion of Russia was the destruction of the
> communist Soviet Union itself or to convince Britain to surrender by
> removing the USSR as a potential ally. There are good cases made on
> both sides.
> 
> 
>>> On November 15, 2015 8:42:04 PM EST, Mark Roberts 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>> 
 Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize
>>> Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
>>> 
>>> ??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
>>> Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
>>> Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
>>> considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
>>> various books on the war may be better for a casual read ? try The
>>> "Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
>>> historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
> www.robertstech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

Paul Stenquist wrote:

>The tone is what disturbs me. I realize that there's no literal holocaust 
>denial here, but Frank's post suggested that Hittler wasn't really all that 
>bad.

Sorry, I didn't detect any of that in Frank's post.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

When I was a kid, I wondered: if Japan wanted to take over the world, and 
Germany wanted to take over the world, what would have happened if the Axis 
powers actually won WWII?

They'd be standing staring at each other, prolly in Russia or in the middle of 
the Pacific or something, all like, "What do we do now? We can't, like, split 
up the world 'cause we each want World Domination! Geez, we never figured on 
this happening. I guess we have to fight each other to the death now."

Well, I grew up and actually took some history courses and learned that neither 
of them really wanted to take over the world. Only The Brain really wanted that 
and he's quite insane. 

They (Germany and Japan) were definitely bad guys. At least their leaders were. 
They did nasty and horrible things. Like atrocities in China. And using POWs as 
slave labour to buildevi railways. And the Holocaust.

But just because they were evil doesn't mean they wanted to take over the 
world. They just had a warped sense of what they were entitled to and we're 
prepared to kill lots of people to do it. We added the "take over the world" 
thing as wartime propaganda to galvanize our citizenry against the enemy - they 
needed that, especially in the US where there was a lot of pro-German 
sentiment. That's maybe why you guys stood by and did nothing while Germany 
bombed the living crap outta London and the rest of England.

And I'll say it again to you Paul, suggesting that my description of history 
(which as Mark says is quite orthodox) is in some way akin to Holocaust denial 
is really stooping quite low. It's an association fallacy and quite irrelevant 
to the discussion at hand.

Finally, I'd ask you to read my posts again. I never said ISIS IS okay. In fact 
I said they're evil. 

Evil is not the same as okay.

When you attribute such a statement to me you're being quite dishonest. I'll 
grant you that perhaps you were exaggerating to make a point, but that's really 
not okay.

Cheers,

frank

On November 15, 2015 8:53:32 PM EST, Paul Stenquist  
wrote:
> I've read them. Just a notch below holocaust deniers. More
>rationalizing. ISIS is okay. We're okay, they're okay. Let's all hug.
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>> 
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to
>rationalize Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
>> 
>> ??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
>> Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
>> Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
>> considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
>> various books on the war may be better for a casual read – try The
>> "Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
>> historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
>> www.robertstech.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>and follow the directions.
>
>-- 
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>follow the directions.

-- 

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

:-)

Paul via phone

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
> 
> Okay everyone. I declare the Hitler Rule. 
> 
> *reminder* ... The Hitler Rule says that as soon as Hitler is mentioned in a 
> friendly political discussion, the discussion is over. ;-)
> 
> thanks for playing, 
> G
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread Bill


On 11/15/2015 8:23 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

Paul Stenquist wrote:


The tone is what disturbs me. I realize that there's no literal holocaust 
denial here, but Frank's post suggested that Hittler wasn't really all that bad.


Sorry, I didn't detect any of that in Frank's post.




Mark and Frank. You are talking to Americans about a subject they mostly 
know about from history books written by Americans and for American 
consumption.

To be kind, their views are somewhat propagandized.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread Darren Addy

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
 wrote:
> Okay everyone. I declare the Hitler Rule.
>
> *reminder* ... The Hitler Rule says that as soon as Hitler is mentioned in a 
> friendly political discussion, the discussion is over. ;-)

I believe you are referring to Godwin's Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread Ken Waller




Let's all hug.


Can't we all just get along ?

Where's the sarcasm symbol?

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" <pnstenqu...@comcast.net>

Subject: Re: OT: Solidarité!


 I've read them. Just a notch below holocaust deniers. More 
rationalizing. ISIS is okay. We're okay, they're okay. Let's all hug.



On Nov 15, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Mark Roberts <postmas...@robertstech.com> 
wrote:


Paul Stenquist wrote:

Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize 
Hitler's goals. That's laughable.


??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
various books on the war may be better for a casual read – try The
"Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.

--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

Godwin's Law is what motivated The Hitler Rule. ;-)

G

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
>  wrote:
>> Okay everyone. I declare the Hitler Rule.
>> 
>> *reminder* ... The Hitler Rule says that as soon as Hitler is mentioned in a 
>> friendly political discussion, the discussion is over. ;-)
> 
> I believe you are referring to Godwin's Law.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

2015-11-15 Thread paul stenquist

Bill,

We’re not all provincial down here, believe it or not. I’ve read Bryant, 
Roberts and other British historians. My views are not a product of American 
jingoism, but neither are they apologist.

Paul
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Bill  wrote:
> 
> On 11/15/2015 8:23 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> 
>>> The tone is what disturbs me. I realize that there's no literal holocaust 
>>> denial here, but Frank's post suggested that H wasn't really all that bad.
>> 
>> Sorry, I didn't detect any of that in Frank's post.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Mark and Frank. You are talking to Americans about a subject they mostly know 
> about from history books written by Americans and for American consumption.
> To be kind, their views are somewhat propagandized.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!

I agree that the world is less violent than it has ever been. I also agree that 
the US and allies were mistaken in their zeal to remove the oppressive 
dictators who at least controlled the fringe elements of their world. Fringe 
elements that have thrived and grown powerful in an environment that was meant 
to be democratic. But the goal of the Islamic State is apocalyptic. Armageddon 
and world domination is their historical and oft-stated goal. They are a real 
and constant danger, and ignoring the threat won't make it go away. 

Paul via phone

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:54 AM, ann sanfedele  wrote:
> 
> Eloquently put... I suspect Godder's "question" was rhetorical, but you knew 
> that
> 
> ann
> 
>> On 11/15/2015 10:08 AM, knarf wrote:
>> I've typed and re-typed several responses to this, Godfrey. I think I'll 
>> send this one, regarding your question about whether this violence will ever 
>> stop.
>> 
>> These sorts of horrific events cause a lot of soul - searching and looking 
>> for answers. Unfortunately, in these modern times, these contemplations 
>> occur with dismal frequency.
>> 
>> I'm going to preface what I say by stating that ~apparently~ we live in one 
>> of the least violent times in the history of the world. It sure doesn't feel 
>> that way, but statistics indicate that. Small consolation to the victims in 
>> Paris or Tel Aviv or Baghdad, I know...
>> 
>> Cheap, easily - obtained  weapons. Combatants who have nothing to lose and 
>> are more than prepared to kill themselves for their cause. Very heavily 
>> armed, militarized nation-states. All of this and more almost ensure that 
>> these events will continue to occur. Add to that groups who feel that 
>> they've been oppressed for decades or centuries and the mix is lethal.
>> 
>> And of course what's going on in the Middle East and how The West is 
>> handling it increase the inevitability that the violence will spill over 
>> into Europe and North America. Ironic that Hollande screams that the Friday 
>> the 13th attacks were "an act of war" when in fact France is engaging in 
>> warlike behaviour in Iraq.
>> 
>> Over 17,000 civilians died in Iraq last year. At least 1,700 died as a 
>> result of International Coalition or Iraqi Air Force air strikes. Another 
>> 10,000 died from unidentified combatants.
>> 
>> Is it any wonder ISIS is leaving "calling cards" on home soil of those they 
>> see as combatants in their homeland? I'm neither condoning nor justifying 
>> these heinous atrocities, but they're hardly surprising.
>> 
>> Wars are going on all over the world. Innocent civilians are dying daily (50 
>> of them in Iraq on Friday, for instance). We, insulated in the comfort of 
>> the affluent West, don't bat an eyelash. We don't even notice. But when the 
>> violence hits "our" shores it's the end of the world.
>> 
>> These things are going to keep happening. The change required to stop them 
>> will never happen (see above re: heavily armed nation-states - that includes 
>> the militarization of police forces). Even if radical change does occur, 
>> these events might continue. Maybe it's just human nature. Combined with 
>> cheap weapons.
>> 
>> But we're living in the least violent time in human history...
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> frank
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On November 14, 2015 5:29:15 PM EST, Godfrey DiGiorgi  
>>> wrote:
>>> Indeed.
>>> 
>>> I think of this with the same feelings of sadness, outrage, and horror
>>> that comes to mind when I hear of trouble in and near Tel Aviv,
>>> worrying for Boris and his family.
>>> 
>>> Can we not stop these atrocities? A century of senseless violence and
>>> horror behind us... Is there another one to come? What will it take to
>>> put an end to it all?
>>> 
>>> I grieve.
>>> 
>>> G
>>> 
> On Nov 14, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Brian Walters 
 wrote:
 Mike Johnston's piece today is quite simple and eloquent, I thought:
>>> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/11/to-our-friends.html
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015, at 02:01 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>>> http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/gateway/france/fr_1x._V288659243_.png
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Solidarité!