Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Martin Edwards · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <48eadb5e$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows there was
no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII

Come over here and say that.

Ken Down

Things you don>t say for fear of a punch on the nose are irrelevant. I[/quote]
know a lot of Moslems who believe some absolute nonsense. I think our
friend has fallen for a fallacy though. The fact there were survivors
does not negate the attempt or the intention. Otto Ohlendorf went to
the gallows saying that the American Jews were next. The fact that
there was no real prospect of this is beside the point.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Matt Giwer · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <48eadac4$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

The is Matt the Pratt, renowned interpreter of international treaties,
liar extraordinaire, dim wit par excellence.

Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination:

As I said, this is Matt the Pratt, renowned interpreter of
international treaties, dim wit par excellence.
[/quote]
And as I said, to stupid to master elementary high school algebra. Did you
ever get your GED?

Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination: 27 million Jews
survived the holocaust

....

There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in Europe at the start of the
war.

In 2004 Israel issued a more refined number still alive in that year,
1,092,000, for the purpose of actually filing lawsuits. So 59 years after
the event 16/75s were still alive. That leaves us with 5,118,750 alive in
1945 if none were killed for inability to work and the birthrate were the
same as it was in peacetime. If we go with those under 13 being killed we
have 27,300,000 holocaust survivors alive in 1945. This is nearly twice as
many Jews as were in all the world in 1938 and three times those in all of
Europe in that same year.

=====

The entire article at http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml

Please feel free to demonstrate you are ignorant of elementary algebra by
disagreeing. But if you do disagree source your input numbers and provide
your calculations.

--
Abraham was such a great con artist he sold his wife to kings many times
over and convinced the world god gave him Palestine.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4063
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5

Elijahovah · Guest

It is common for structures to be reversed by others who
thought they understood better. One example is Marduk Street
of which standing on the Tower Of Babel the rise of Mars was seen
on July 8 in 2009 BC two days BEFORE the summer solstice July 10.
It was the new year of Noah>s 360-day calendar. However, in
747 BC NeoBabylon insisted Egypt>s calendar was inaugurated
on a July 17 Toth 1 as new year in 2770 BC not a July 17 Pamenot 1
in 2030 BC. Thus they insisted that the new year was not observed
from the tower, over the wall to the gate of Marduk street, but rather
walking in thru the gate looking at the winter solstice sun over the
tower
using the date Toth 1 as new year on Jan 8 two days AFTER winter
solstice.
They then said Marduk was not a span of 364x 360 days which marked
the formula 365x 360 days = 360x 365 days, but rather claimed it was
949x 360 days = 936x 365 days. This resulted in the Flood claimed as
Adam>s year 2256 instead of 1656. And so denied 834 BC to be year
3192 as 936 years after 1770 BC as the real year 2256. It made 2009 BC
the year 3192, as counted from 2 years after the Flood 2947-2945 BC.
This is why the year 800 AD then marks 6000 too early by 1175 years
before the real year 6000 in 1975 AD.

STONEHENGE
was founded the same day Moses argued with high priest Janus in
Egypt.
That date is Koyak 21 on Jan 4 of 1554 BC.
It is a solar eclipse on the winter solstice.
The span being argued is 475 years, and what it
includes as a solstice eclipse is 120 leap days
from 2029 BC Jan 6 which is the winter solstice between
the first human to age and die (Mesanipada called Peleg
in May 2030 BC)
after the Flood (2370 BC) and then the mass suicide of Ur
to join him in heaven (Koyak 25 May 6 Saturnalia of Saturn
with Regulus not Capricorn) by Nahor and his grandson
Haran who returned to Ur from Harran the two known as
Akalumdug and Meskalumdug.

19 x 25 years of 309 moons is less than
25x 19 years of 235 moons
Moses saw this, Janus did not.
So Stonehenge was built 72 years after Adam>s year 2400.
Why? Because Nimrod>s death as the last man to live
500 in Adam>s year 2256 was marked in Egypt and
Babylon>s Hamurabi in 1770 BC as 1200 year Venus.
By coincidence the Venus pentacle rotated 180 degrees
in 600 years from Flood, and so it was Noah>s year 1200.
The 8-year December Venus had drifted to July.
Thus Amizaduga used it in Adam>s year 2400 in
July 1626 BC. These 744 years are Noah>s year 1344
and are seen by Maya as the miscalculated Flood 3114 BC
to 1770 BC used as Adam>s year 3600 for Babylon.
The December Venus of 2370 BC moved to July for 1626 BC
but using the 243 Julian return of Venus, the next Venus
584 days later is a December 1625 BC so that these two Venus
mark year 2400 and year 2401 in Noah>s year 1344 and 1345.
The Maya beleived 1770 BC to be Noah>s year 1344 from Flood.
Sidereal sothic 720+720+20 = 1460 of 365 leap days broken
down into 720 years 180 leap days is contrasted to the seasonal
leap day of the sun as 744+744+20 = 1508 where 744 years
are 180 leap days of the sun before and after 2370 BC so that
the Maya mathematically presumed the Flood as 3114 BC
instead of 2370 BC.

72 years later is the same formula found involved everywhere
as 72x 365 days = 73x 360 days
so in 1554 BC in year 2472 the Druid forefathers saw that
the remainder was 63x 56 years. This 56 years are lunar
dates of Venus but also nodal for the moon to 1975 AD.
As always their knowledge was not accurate enough to be true
during the passage of these 3528 years to mark 1975 AD.

ELIJAH
if the calculated asteroid does hit April 9
you have 7 days while mantle meltdown 6000 feet
under the crust reaches the center of continents causing
a collapse again for 150 days again. If youre American
there are only 13 Appalachian mountains above 6000 feet.
This is risking your wife>s life the way Lot whined
he wanted to go to Zoar not up the mountains.
They plunged 11,000 feet on Julian Nov 27 of 2370 BC
and they>ll plunge 6000 feet on Gregorian April 16 of 2009 AD.
Jehovah will collect his taxes from the USA that day in blood.

Matt Giwer · Guest

Digger wrote:
[quote]"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48eadda1$0$8517$
On one hand I read of a large, permanent settlement around/near it. On the
other I read of regular gatherings of large numbers of people traveling
there from far and wide. Where I expect evidence of the latter all I read
is evidence of the former.
Which is it and for which is there in fact evidence?

For the evidence have a look at B.A.R. report 1692 which summarises the
latest thinking on Durrington Walls. It>s entitled "From Stonehenge to the
Baltic: Living with cultural diversity in the third millenium BC".
[/quote]
Given the rate of cultural diffusion limited by walking and the English
Channel that geographic range at that time would be like substituting Spain
and Mesopotamia for Stonehenge and Baltics. Now we can show a connection of
the pantheons from Persia to Greece and Egypt would likely apply to Stonehenge
to the Baltics. But "cultural diversity" shows a mastery of understatement.

Yes, I am aware of henges throughout northern Europe and likely many more
than we have discovered so far because most of them were likely purely
functional and long lost to the plow and plain forest growth. Most were likely
simple affairs of maybe small stones or wood and possibly poplars. They are
not hard to "calibrate."

But, big butt here ;), the idea that a particularly impressive henge was a
place of pilgrimage leaves me cold. Maybe a tribe that could afford to build
it INVITED others to show off their wealth. However such invitations usually
means military superiority. Any signs of that? None I hear of.

[quote]I don>t really buy into Parker Pearson>s vision of a large permanent
settlement on the site. We only excavated a handful of structures and there
was little indication on the geophysics that structures existed in the huge
numbers he proposes. However, the vast amount of midden material excavated
outside the eastern entrance is ample evidence that people gathered at the
site in huge numbers, probably for seasonal festivals or something similar.
[/quote]
There is the problem again, probably. A fixed population showing up every
"sunday" and a large seasonal population would leave the same quantity. So
there has to be something in the quality of what is in the trash to
distinguish between the two.

I don>t have a dog in this fight. I am mostly annoyed by all the speculation
which I find hard at times to distinguish from Lourdes or Fatima. If I am to
become interested I am interested in bottoms up evidence not "all roads lead
to Vatican City" kind of reasoning. Most of what I read is in the Atlantis
category. I really don>t care if UFOs landed there but I expect it to be based
upon a neutronium piston rod not speculation by analogy.

[quote]The evidence from human bones excavated around the locality does demonstrate
that people were traveling from far and wide to visit the site and, perhaps,
settle in the wider area, (although the immediate environs of Stonehenge
seem not to have been permanently occupied).
[/quote]
OR it shows the peoples of the islands were nomadic and were buried where
they died. A nomadic culture is one with a fixed settlement and the able
bodied men are gone from after planting until before harvest doing the herding
and hunting and such. In their travels the men visit the settlements of other
tribes and trade, barter for women, get into fights and die and are buried.

Even though I do not have a dog in this fight, I see so many of the
"interpretations" of the data arguing to a conclusion. The conclusion here is
that Stonehenge was the Vatican of ancient of northern Europe. The Vatican
today may be impressive. So is the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. So is the
Qab in Mecca. Visiting depends upon being a member of the religion. If we have
learned anything maintaining a uniformity of religion over a distance requires
organization, the greater the distance the greater the organization.

I know of no signs of organization in northern Europe in those days which
could make Stonehenge a focal point. Given the tendency of religious
splitting, if Stonehenge were popular I would expect several of them competing
to be the the "real" Stonehenge of the "real" religion.

--
Abraham was such a great con artist he sold his wife to kings many times
over and convinced the world god gave him Palestine.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4063
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5

Christopher Ingham · Guest

On Oct 8, 9:27 am, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 2008-09-29, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:

"In a project that has now been underway for 20 years, the German
archeologist Manfred Korfmann and hundreds of collaborators have
discovered a large lower city that surrounded the citadel."

The above is from an article dated September 28, 2008 that was posted
in another newsgroup. A responding poster insists that grammatical
construction of the quote implies that the article must actually have
been written no later than 2005, when the archaeologist Korfmann died;
yet it almost certainly was written recently.

Assuming it is recent, and apart from the consideration that the
author would have done better to rephrase the sentence, is the
sentence acceptable as it is?

Christopher Ingham

The sentence seems to be grammatically acceptable, and it makes sense.

The tense of the sentence is what I think is best decribed as 'past
continuous' in English. That does not (in my opinion) require that any one
person named has been continuously involved and still is at the time of
writing; only that the project has occupied the span of "20 years" and
involved over that time "hundreds of collaborators".

As the period referred to is 20 years, that leaves plenty of time for the
late Manfred Korfmann to have been actively involved and to have made a
contribution worthy of acknowledgement. The writer may not have known
that the man had died before the sentence was written, or knew but felt it
unnecessary to add further complication to that sentence. Or an editor
may have felt the need to reduce the word-count or the physical space
occupied by the entire article, and removed part of what was originally
written.

If it is desired to assign a particular year to the writing of the
sentence, the biggest clue is the mention of 20 years; assuming that the
start of the project can be given a secure dating, simply adding 20 years
to that date would seem to be all that is required. No need for shakey
inferences to be drawn from the choice of words.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
[/quote]
I originally posted my question last week in sci.lang ("Subjects and
verb") after Eric Stevens erroneously claimed that the article quoted
in a thread in this ng ("'The Odyssey' and 'The Iliad' are giving up
new secrets...") could not have been written recently.

The sentence originally seemed alright to me also, given the
conditions which you pointed out. (The tense may be present perfect
continuous.) Upon reexamination after ES brought attention to it, the
most problematic part seemed to be "have discovered a large lower
city ... in a project that has been underway." Normally something can
only have been discovered only once; but of course in the case of
Hisarlik the process has been ongoing.

Christopher Ingham

Whiskers · Guest

On 2008-09-29, Christopher Ingham <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]"In a project that has now been underway for 20 years, the German
archeologist Manfred Korfmann and hundreds of collaborators have
discovered a large lower city that surrounded the citadel."

The above is from an article dated September 28, 2008 that was posted
in another newsgroup. A responding poster insists that grammatical
construction of the quote implies that the article must actually have
been written no later than 2005, when the archaeologist Korfmann died;
yet it almost certainly was written recently.

Assuming it is recent, and apart from the consideration that the
author would have done better to rephrase the sentence, is the
sentence acceptable as it is?

Christopher Ingham
[/quote]
The sentence seems to be grammatically acceptable, and it makes sense.

The tense of the sentence is what I think is best decribed as 'past
continuous' in English. That does not (in my opinion) require that any one
person named has been continuously involved and still is at the time of
writing; only that the project has occupied the span of "20 years" and
involved over that time "hundreds of collaborators".

As the period referred to is 20 years, that leaves plenty of time for the
late Manfred Korfmann to have been actively involved and to have made a
contribution worthy of acknowledgement. The writer may not have known
that the man had died before the sentence was written, or knew but felt it
unnecessary to add further complication to that sentence. Or an editor
may have felt the need to reduce the word-count or the physical space
occupied by the entire article, and removed part of what was originally
written.

If it is desired to assign a particular year to the writing of the
sentence, the biggest clue is the mention of 20 years; assuming that the
start of the project can be given a secure dating, simply adding 20 years
to that date would seem to be all that is required. No need for shakey
inferences to be drawn from the choice of words.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Whiskers · Guest

On 2008-10-08, Christopher Ingham <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 9:27Â am, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
On 2008-09-29, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
[/quote]
[...]

[quote]The sentence originally seemed alright to me also, given the
conditions which you pointed out. (The tense may be present perfect
continuous.) Upon reexamination after ES brought attention to it, the
most problematic part seemed to be "have discovered a large lower
city ... in a project that has been underway." Normally something can
only have been discovered only once; but of course in the case of
Hisarlik the process has been ongoing.
[/quote]
Applying pedant>s logic, the correct phrasing would be something like "...
have inferred the presence of a large lower city from their interpretation
of numerous artefacts and indications discovered ..." but in practice,
"... have discovered a large lower city ..." is a reasonable statement,
and much easier to read.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <ooZGk.6907$Cl.5426@newsfe28.ams2>
Martin Edwards <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows
there was no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII

Come over here and say that.

Things you don>t say for fear of a punch on the nose are irrelevant.
[/quote]
Oh, it wouldn>t be a punch on the nose. If Matt the Pratt came over
here he would be arrested and extradited to Germany, where he would
spend several years in prison.

Just think! Several years without having to put up with his nonsense!!
Bliss!!!

[quote]I know a lot of Moslems who believe some absolute nonsense. I think our
friend has fallen for a fallacy though.
[/quote]
Matt the Pratt may be your friend; he is not mine.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Matt Giwer · Guest

Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48eadb5e$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows
there was
no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII

Come over here and say that.

Things you don>t say for fear of a punch on the nose are irrelevant. I
know a lot of Moslems who believe some absolute nonsense. I think our
friend has fallen for a fallacy though. The fact there were survivors
does not negate the attempt or the intention.
[/quote]
The fact that there were twice as many survivors in 1945 as there were Jews
in 1938 says all that needs be said about both intent and intention. However
if we negate all the horror stories about an extermination we have the number
of survivors in 1945 roughly equal to the number in 1938 although that is
still roughly double the number the Red Cross were in concentration camps
during the war.

[quote]Otto Ohlendorf went to
the gallows saying that the American Jews were next. The fact that
there was no real prospect of this is beside the point.
[/quote]
How do you construe that as evidence of an attempt or intention?

What you have always failed to address is there is no physical evidence for
that to which you would pay lip service. You have everything but physical
evidence which is a very strange thing indeed for what is represented as a
slam dunk certainty.

In thinking of people like you I came up with this sig many years ago.

If I were told WWII had been conducted in secret, that all but a few documents
had been destroyed, that those documents were all in code words, and it took a
court to establish that it happened, damned right I would be skeptical.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 32

--
If this financial mess has taught us anything it is that the government can
CREATE hundreds of billions of dollars by magic and SPEND them without
authorization from Congress in violation of the US Constitution.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4056
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8

Martin Edwards · Guest

Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]Martin Edwards wrote:
Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48eadb5e$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows
there was
no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII

Come over here and say that.

Things you don>t say for fear of a punch on the nose are irrelevant.
I know a lot of Moslems who believe some absolute nonsense. I think
our friend has fallen for a fallacy though. The fact there were
survivors does not negate the attempt or the intention.

The fact that there were twice as many survivors in 1945 as there
were Jews in 1938 says all that needs be said about both intent and
intention. However if we negate all the horror stories about an
extermination we have the number of survivors in 1945 roughly equal to
the number in 1938 although that is still roughly double the number the
Red Cross were in concentration camps during the war.

Otto Ohlendorf went to the gallows saying that the American Jews were
next. The fact that there was no real prospect of this is beside the
point.

How do you construe that as evidence of an attempt or intention?

"The American Jews will suffer for what they have done to me." Clearly[/quote]
he was in no position to make the attempt, but it is evidence of an (in
this case fanciful) intention.

[quote]What you have always failed to address is there is no physical
evidence for that to which you would pay lip service. You have
everything but physical evidence which is a very strange thing indeed
for what is represented as a slam dunk certainty.
[/quote]
I do not regard it as such: I really am trying to get to the bottom of
this. Note that I get slagged off by both you and your most vehement
opponents in the attempt. On the other hand I have seen on tv:

a) aerial photographs of the crematoria with other buildings a short
distance away;

b) postwar photographs with the other buildings blown up and the
crematoria intact. What were the other buildings and why were they
blown up and the crematoria not?

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From â€œRollerballâ€

Martin Edwards · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <ooZGk.6907$Cl.5426@newsfe28.ams2
Martin Edwards <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote:

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows
there was no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII

Come over here and say that.

Things you don>t say for fear of a punch on the nose are irrelevant.

Oh, it wouldn>t be a punch on the nose. If Matt the Pratt came over
here he would be arrested and extradited to Germany, where he would
spend several years in prison.

Just think! Several years without having to put up with his nonsense!!
Bliss!!!

I know a lot of Moslems who believe some absolute nonsense. I think our
friend has fallen for a fallacy though.

Matt the Pratt may be your friend; he is not mine.

Ken Down

This is, as you may or not know, a figure of speech in UK English, often[/quote]
used ironically.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Digger · Guest

"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48ec6f5b$0$4913
[quote]Given the rate of cultural diffusion limited by walking and the English
Channel that geographic range at that time would be like substituting
Spain and Mesopotamia for Stonehenge and Baltics.
[/quote]
never underestimate the distances people were travelling in prehisotry. Once
you start to understand the evidence you find that people were travelling
mind-boggling distances. We already know there were very close links between
Britain at this time and north western Spain.

[quote]Yes, I am aware of henges throughout northern Europe
[/quote]
Actually, no henges per se exist outside the British Isles but maybe you
don>t fully understand what a henge actually is.

[quote]But, big butt here ;), the idea that a particularly impressive henge was a
place of pilgrimage leaves me cold. Maybe a tribe that could afford to
build it INVITED others to show off their wealth. However such invitations
usually means military superiority. Any signs of that? None I hear of.
[/quote]
I don>t follow your argument here. The military thing is a red herring as
far as I am concerned. What we DO now know about Stonehenge and what used to
be called the "Wessex" culture, is that there does appear to be evidence
that the builders of the Wessex Henges may also have been in control of the
Copper/Bronze trade in the British Isles and NW Europe.

[quote]There is the problem again, probably. A fixed population showing up every
"sunday" and a large seasonal population would leave the same quantity. So
there has to be something in the quality of what is in the trash to
distinguish between the two.
[/quote]
There>s plenty of evidence. We know from the animal bones in the midden,
EXACTLY what time of year people were at the site. Read the reports and
you>ll see how this evidence works.

[quote]The evidence from human bones excavated around the locality does
demonstrate that people were traveling from far and wide to visit the
site and, perhaps, settle in the wider area, (although the immediate
environs of Stonehenge seem not to have been permanently occupied).

OR it shows the peoples of the islands were nomadic and were buried where
they died. A nomadic culture is one with a fixed settlement and the able
bodied men are gone from after planting until before harvest doing the
herding and hunting and such. In their travels the men visit the
settlements of other tribes and trade, barter for women, get into fights
and die and are buried.
[/quote]
Read the reports, then comment. We know that people were at the site who
began their lives in Wales, Northern England and Mainland Europe. The
distances from point of origin would suggest that there is something more
than a nomadic round going on here. Unfortunately we can>t yet tell where
people died but we CAN tell where they were born.

[quote]Even though I do not have a dog in this fight, I see so many of the
"interpretations" of the data arguing to a conclusion. The conclusion here
is that Stonehenge was the Vatican of ancient of northern Europe.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. It *may* have been the Vatican of its day. It may have been
the Lourdes of its day. Equally, it might have been the Wall Street or the
Wembley Stadium of its day. We simply don>t know yet. All we can say with
any certainty is that the site was VERY VERY important for some people
liviing in prehisotric Britain and Europe.

[quote]I know of no signs of organization in northern Europe in those days which
could make Stonehenge a focal point.
Then I would suggest you need to read more widely.[/quote]

[quote]Given the tendency of religious splitting, if Stonehenge were popular I
would expect several of them competing to be the the "real" Stonehenge of
the "real" religion.
[/quote]
There are plenty of candidates to be rivals to Stonehenge under the type of
system you propose. Avebury could have made a claim to be the greatest, as
could Knowlton, Marden, Mount Pleasant, Thornborough, Arbour Low and many
others.

Matt Giwer · Guest

imipak wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 8:45 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48e3e623$0$8477$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
As long as that restaurant has one member of the Israeli
military, on or off
duty, active or reserve, it is a lawful military target and the
rest are
collateral damage.
Again, no. The possibility of killing or injuring civilians must
be weighed against the value of the target. It *might* be
legitimate to kill a restaurant-full of civilians to get Osama bin
Laden - note the "might" - but it certainly is not worth it just
to get one (possibly unwilling) conscript.
Do not complain to me. I never wrote a treaty in my life.
And on present showing you have not the least idea of how to
interpret them either.
I agree you are ignorant of international law. Your ignorance has
no bearing
upon what I may be nor does it give you license to post
mischievous lies.
That you are a nasty little nazi is not a lie but the plain truth.
If you want to contest the matter, come over here. One of your
fellow-travelling holocaust deniers was arrested yesterday as soon
as his plane touched down at Heathrow.
On a European warrant. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany,
understandably, but not in England and Wales or most of Europe. The
whole isssue is clouded by imprecise use of language. Strictly
speaking, there was no holocaust because European Jewry was not
wiped out. Indeed, the number of survivors was the precise reason
the white settlers in Palestine were able create Israel. I have
tried to convince our friend time and time again that there was a
concerted attempt to do so, stemming from pseudoscience. I am not
sure he is a Nazi: holocaust denial may be a separate pathology.
If you look up hardcore neo-Nazi groups, such as Combat 18, most of
them wish to resume the operation.
You may present anything you want. Algebra is the same for
everyone. Israel gave the number of survivors for a particular year.
That tells us how many survivors there were in 1945.
No amount of argumentation can change either the arithmetic or
the average human lifespan.
But please feel free to point out the "pseudoscience" in my use
of the human lifespan in the elementary demographic calculation.
Like Mr. Spock, I am all ears.
You have misread me yet again. Nazi racism was based on
pseudoscience. Frankly, I don>t think you are too bright.
In regard to the last sentence, what you say is Nazi racism was
the norm in Europe at the time. The Nazis were not different in that
regard. I have given you several examples of it in England. You should
not have a problem finding the English view of the Irish race in those
days, and even today, on your own.
I did not say that, and it was not so. Certainly some kind of racism
was widely disseminated, but the theories of the notorious Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky were a minority interest. There were very few
English people who actually wanted to exterminate the Irish. Today
there are so many English people wholly or partially of Irish descent
that any holder of such views has to keep very quiet.
In the matter of racial superiority I suggest the English openly discussing
their natural fitness to rule the world.

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows there was
no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII, there is no cause for an
invented claim about the Irish.

--
There is no archaeological evidence of any Jews or
Judeans prior to the late 2nd c. BC.
The Iron Webmaster, 4050
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtmla2

The English (who technically do not exist, the inhabitants of Britain
are genetically descended from the original Ice Age settlers and not
the Angles from whom the word "English" is derived) are not fit to
rule much more than a cabbage patch, and I speak as an Englishman.
Although we are more civilized than many (the Magna Carta defining
many constraints on legal proceedings and - at least in the first
draft - also subjecting the King to the law as an equal and permitting
action as necessary to enforce that; slavery was abolished in 1772 -
over a hundred years before America or France, women have been
accepted as rulers since at least 61AD, etc), there are also many who
are more civilized still.

It is arguable that no nation has the right to rule, seize power over
or claim rights over any other nation. And, yes, that includes nations
in the Middle East. Indeed, the right to hold private property
regardless of the wishes of any ruler or occupier was codified by the
Sumerians some time around 5,000 BC. That cannot be considered a
Western notion, but rather a notion the West inherited.

Human rights, as defined by the UN, are defined and codified by common
consent by all participating nations. It is notable that the United
States is one nation that refuses to accept the UN charter on Human
Rights, so clearly these are not even values half of the "West" even
recognizes. The US was even kicked off UN Human Rights bodies, owing
to charter violations, and Middle Eastern nations have acquired seats
on such bodies - clearly indicating that the charter is one that the
Middle East as a whole recognizes as one that must inevitably dominate
over local politics and religious beliefs. If they did not believe
that, they>d reject such bodies the same way as the US does. Since
they have not, the current political and religious beliefs are of no
consequence as they have acknowledged that there is no fundamental
incompatibility and that where any incompatibilities exist, it is the
nation that needs to change.

(Of course, this assumes that no nation is attempting to subvert the
process or defile their own commitments. If you want to say something
about your own country acting for dishonourable reasons, or signing up
to treaties they have no intent to honour, that is entirely up to you.
I will, for example, point out that Britain has broken trust and
broken treaties in the past and will doubtless do so again, though I
believe it to genuinely hold to the abstract notion of human rights
and the notion of international law. I will not accuse any other
nation of those acts, because I do not have the right to do so. My
example of the US is not pointing fingers because they are clearly
acting in accordance with their beliefs and their beliefs openly
include rejecting the UN>s stance on human rights in favour of their
own beliefs of what human rights should be. I may dislike it, but it
is consistent and is entirely open. If you wish to point fingers,
please do so on alt.flame where such posts are welcomed.)
[/quote]
It was only getting to your last sentence that I think I see what you are
getting at. I can only guess you are continuing a discussion from another
thread. I can see no connection to the claims of racial superiority being
common early in the last century and the Brits were among the worst offenders.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the only official UN statement
of what they are. No nation implements all of them. The UDHR can at best be
viewed as a goal. It is a melding of the politically popular "rights" of the
countries in the UN at the time it was created.

If one is a libertarian it fails as a statement of rights where the
fulfillment of a right is based upon an obligation upon others. A right to
free speech differs from a right to decent housing in that regard. In Europe
the right to gainful employment is a political ideal even though it is
commonly replaced by welfare.

As I was saying self-determination is interpreted differently in different
societies. As we go from west to east it varies from a right of individuals to
increasingly larger family groups.

The US was not kicked off of anything. It was simply not re-elected by
European members. Complain about what really happened and direct your
attention to those who failed to re-elect.

As to how the UN determines membership in sub-organizations that is also
something you will have to take up with someone who can change it, which is no
one.

The UN itself was constituted by the greater evil from WWII as it included
communist Russia which was many times worse than Nazi Germany by every
measure. What do you expect?

As for middle eastern countries that is such an imprecise description.
Lebanon has been a democracy since 1943 five years before Israel started
claiming it was the only democracy in the middle east. Yemen and Egypt are
also democracies and if you do not like that you can contact the State
Department as I did not declare them democracies. Turkey and Iran are both
democracies as is Iraq.

There is a problem here. For decades the Zionists openly declared their
intention to take over Palestine and expel the native population. They did so.
The native population of the middle east did not start the problem. The Jews
deliberately started their own problems and one of these days they are simply
going to have to learn to live with what they chose.

--
When a hospital is said to be on the cutting edge of new treatments that
means it is following all the latest fads.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4069
http://www.giwersworld.org a1

Matt Giwer · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <ooZGk.6907$Cl.5426@newsfe28.ams2
Martin Edwards <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote:

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows
there was no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII

Come over here and say that.

Things you don>t say for fear of a punch on the nose are irrelevant.

Oh, it wouldn>t be a punch on the nose. If Matt the Pratt came over
here he would be arrested and extradited to Germany, where he would
spend several years in prison.
[/quote]
I do not visit primitive countries nor do I have an interest in their
totalitarian impulses.

--
The lesson from this financial mess is the people on Wall Street are no more
qualified than you and I to run the country>s finances.
-- The Iron Webmaser, 4058
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a9

Garry Denke · Guest

Researchers Disagree About Age, Purpose of Stonehenge
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/September-October/Researchers-Disagree-About-Age--Purpose-of-Stonehenge.html

I see that Pearson, Pitts and Richards have proven, a) SH did not
begin as a cemetery and, b) SH did not begin as a wooden building. No
bones were in any of the 56 Aubrey Holes at first, they were full of
56 Pembrokeshire Blue Stone. Those 3000 BC bones had to be buried
after Blue Stone was removed. That makes their SH arrival date earlier
(3100 BC) coinciding with the Ditch surrounding them. Pearson, Pitts
and Richards might consider 3100 BC Pembrokeshire Blue Coal
(anthracite) explorers from Preseli Hills marking SH fast silting-in
Ditch coal duster with 56 Pembrokeshire Blue Stone (volcanics) who
abandoned the duster later which became their cemetery. Wainwright and
Darvill might consider this also since that is what happened (great
Cursus Coal Cache found). In 7 days Public Consultation of the Future
of SH will end. Lt-Col William Hawley and Robert Newall original 1920s
evidence (56 'X' Holes) first holding Blue Stone has been confirmed.
Scroll Trench was also a Hawley and Newall discovery West-SW of
Heelstone (unfinished). Will it be Pearson, Pitts and Richards digging
up the Arc Trench ending? or will it be Wainwright and Darvill digging
up the Arc Trench ending? SH is just Stonehenge? or SH is Stonehenge
Hospital? In 7 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_Trench

Garry Denke


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Archaeology Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 64, 65, 66 ... 71, 72, 73 Next
Page 65 of 73