Hi Hakan So now Paul Schwartz chooses to continue his foolishness off-list by writing to you.
He sent me two more letters off-list, both sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", but addressing me by name, so he knows the score on that well enough. In the first he protested again that he'd been booted for his opinions (not!), then in the second it finally dawned on him that, as my message had said in the first place, his posting privileges had been suspended until he'd apologized to Andrew - but that I'd stopped him doing that by banning him (not!). By this time, please take note, his posting privileges had been restored, as I'd said on the list, as he had apologized to Andrew (though indirectly). So he had in fact, in his bumbling fashion, succeeded in submitting his apology, by the obvious route, and had not been stopped from doing so, had not been banned, had not been "bounced in less than 24 hours", and his posting privileges had been restored, as promised, but he hadn't figured that out yet. (This person presumes to be teaching me about list management, LOL!) It's hard to find anything he got right, but this is his conclusion, no matter what, and I'm sure it's completely unshakable: >Good one Keith, I apologize, you ban my posts so they won't go through and >then say I wasn't banned, I had my posting privileges revoked until I >apologize--but, you won't let me apologize. You know, I think that's >really clever. It's clear you want no dissent on your board. So I'll go >away, I have to earn a living and this is taking up too much of my time. > >But, we know what really happened here. > >Paul Right from the start, he instantly jumped to the conclusion (along with others in the war party) that his precious views were being unjustly suppressed - WHILE CRITICIZING ME FOR NOT SUPPRESSING THE VIEWS OF THOSE HE DISAGREES WITH, as others in the war party continued to do all along, baying for the "USA bashers" to be silenced (but not them of course). And with this ludicrous series of fact-free disconnects he "proves" it - Viola! - suppression of his views! And the rest of the war party will believe it too. >But, we know what really happened here. So he unsubscribed. Despite the incompetence of its delivery, his apology to Andrew was accepted, his posting privileges restored as promised - everything exactly as promised: but try telling the guy he wasn't banned because of his views. Naah, he knows better. From below, off-list to Hakan: > >Second question, when I suffer quietly while my country is bashed by those > >on the list for weeks and then I decided to talk on all comers and defend my > >homeland, I get bounced in less than 24 hours. Who acting like Dr. Joseph > >Goerbels here? See? "Bounced." Nothing about his calling Andrew a fascist of course. (From mice to gerbils, LOL!) He did get a reply: >>But, we know what really happened here. > >WE do, but you're just kidding yourself. So what. Which is about as much as it bothers me. If people want to fool themselves, that's their problem. But this kind of weak-minded denial and obfuscation here is list-pollution, and that's my problem. So he's gone, good riddance. That much less noise. Keith >Paul, > >Since I learned that you have the posting rights again and I >hope that name calling is no longer necessary, I will post >may answer on the list as follows, > >At 11:31 AM 3/23/2003 -0800, you wrote: > >My replies to the group have apparently been blocked, although I am getting > >the posts. So for the time being, I assume my presence is unwelcome in the > >forum. I did post a reply, but it came back to me. I suggest you talk to > >the list monitor and ask him for a copy, if he still has it. Apparently, I > >can be called names, but I can't return the favor. I do believe that > >Liberals and the Left, in general, are more intolerant of dissent than the > >conservatives. > >I fully and completely disagree with your identification of Andrew, >even if I agreed I am upset about someone saying it. I have full >understanding of Keith reaction and I am happy that you now >can post your apology. > > > >The short answer > >Your answer might to some extent cover the Spanish civil war, >but not Guernica. Now it is my turn to wonder if you know what >you are talking about. > > > >Spain: > > > >1. Civil war > >Yes, and with the Franco's side heavily supported by the Germans. >By this "helping" the Spanish people to get rid of the legal >Government. > > > >2. Terrorist act committed by the Spanish, and their proxies, on the > >Spanish. > >No, committed by the German pilots and planes, who flew the Stukas >used in Guernica. It was the first live test of terror bombing tactics, >developed by the Germans. Later frequently used by Germans and >the opposite side in WWII. > > > >3. Intended targets were civilians. > >The target is the psychological effect on the general population, >their leaders and the military. In absolute number of civilian >casualties (collateral damage) Baghdad is probably larger, >but in percentage of the targets population very much smaller. >I get sick when I see Rumsfeld purring like a cat, when he talks >about it. On the other hand, the German defence minister was >probably very pleased with Guernica also. > > > >4. One of the greatest works in the history of art was painted to > >commemorate the occasion. > >By Pablo Picasso and hanging in UN and was covered when Powell >and others did the press conferences about Iraq. Was regarded as >unsuitable at the occasions. > > > >Iraq: > > > >1. Saddem is financing wars in other parts of the world. He is no different > >from John Gotti, he hires killers to do his dirty work. It doesn't matter > >that the killers always die in the attack. > >The only known financing known was the financial support to families of >suicide bombers, which other states in the neighborhood also did. > > > >2. He signed an agreement to stop a "Internationally sanctioned" war in 1991 > >and has gone back on that agreement. For that reason alone we have the > >right to attack. > >He signed an agreement with UN and not with "we". UN has not >sanctioned this attack and occupation. > > > >3. He is harboring those who attacked us and others. He won't give them up. > >So we claim the right to go get them ourselves. > >This is not in any way proved and the perception is a propaganda >ploy for the American public. > > > >4. Not a civil war. > >Americans are supporting the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam? > >It is done in the name of the suppressed part of the people and >as a help to them. I think that US by this is trying to advertise >this as a civil war. You are right, it is not, it is an aggression by >a foreign power and against the UN charter. What I don't understand >is that you are not supporting Bush/Blair on this issue. > > > >5. Our targets are not civilians; true we some time kill or main the > >innocent, but so does he. > >For "shock and awe" the target is the psychological effect on the >general population, their leaders and the military. This is what I said >and why I compared "shock and awe" with Guernica. I still stand for >my impression. > > > >6. Saddams policies are causing the death of about 5000 children a month > >(or do Amnesty Intern. say a year?). We are doing this, "For the children." > >%^) > >The UN blockade that US refuse to lift, is the direct cause for those >death, nothing else. We can discuss the validity or smartness of the >blockade itself, but it is no question that US have been very hard on this. >US thought that by letting the people suffer, Saddam would be removed >by the people. If the medicin and starvation was an issue, it has been >many attempt by other nations to stop it. > > > >7. No great works of art will commemorate this action. > >I am not so sure. Maybe a great Arab painter will do something of >this also. > > > > >Now, answer the question I posed and which was bounced. Would the world be > >a better place without Saddam in it? > >Does that have anything to do with the comparison between >Guernica and Baghdad? > > > >Second question, when I suffer quietly while my country is bashed by those > >on the list for weeks and then I decided to talk on all comers and defend my > >homeland, I get bounced in less than 24 hours. Who acting like Dr. Joseph > >Goerbels here? > >I think you mean Goebbels and he is recognized as one of the most >genius propaganda specialists during the last century, but the cause was >despicable. His master who was very impressed by the American way >of control of people with propaganda, did find the best in Goebbels. I >think that Goebbels choose the wrong account. > > > >Paul ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock. http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
