@Cmdr:
KurtGodel7:
First off, in “COULD FRANCE OF FOUGHT ON?” thread, Reply #23, you cite wikipedia. Seriously? Wikipedia, the one online journal universally banned from all the world’s (fine, all the respectable ones) university and college campuses for being utterly unreliable.
Now, dont get me wrong, I’m want to use it to define some terms - but generally when it’s bloody common knowledge (certain SOMEBODIES demand freaking you cite every piece of common knowledge, else they go on a rant about how they have a letter from their dead so-in-so giving unvalidated, unrelated opinion that is contradictory.)
Secondly, I happen to have quite a few Polish friends - FROM POLAND, it takes f***ing balls to charge a German tank from horseback. I’m not saying the Germans were all illigitimate children or all people who liked to engage in unaquiessed coital activities (you can translate, I am sure) - but what I am saying, is BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT. Fine, yer German, fine, you have pride in your heritage. I’m bloody Ukrainian and I tell you what, I’m proud of America AND Ukraine. Just try to back off a bit, there are Poles, Frogs, Limeys, Krauts, Reds, Yankee Doodles, Nips and Chinks here, not to mention a bloody helluva lot more.
Tertially, dude, SERIOUSLY, super race (pre-war Japanese options, reply #75) now you’re just BEGGING Imperious Leader to ban you, he’s banned others for far less, hell, I have CONSIDERED (emphases to the EXTREME there) banning others for less, and I’ve yet to ban anyone! (certain somebodies, of course, will beg to differ, but then, who gives a rats anus droppings what they think?)
In summation, may I point out that (while I tried pretty hard to demonstrate) you can technically bait people without breaking the rules (no offence intended to the three of you out there, and you three know who you are and what I am referring too) it’s still a violation of the rules.
Personally, if a topic goes awry, I don’t think IL and I or DM or YG or Dezrt, or Djensen or the planet as a whole give a pah-toot, as long as it stays clean and sober. We ARE, however, a bit shell shocked after “HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED” routinely invaded threads for the expressed intent to derail them and get them locked, in a very clear and deliberate attempt to both drive readers away and shot down intelligent converse.
Just my two copper Sestertius on the matter.
-
The quality of Wikipedia articles varies, depending on the sources cited. Some Wikipedia articles are reliable, others less so.
-
I’m American, not German. I have little if any German blood. My screen name was chosen to honor a man who was arguably the finest mathematician ever to have lived. I am not a mathematician. Even if I were to become one, my mathematical work would not be remotely comparable to Kurt Goedel’s.
-
“Super race” is not an accurate two-word summary of the post in question. That post contains the following words: “Normally researchers who have announced that one race is superior began with specific conclusion in mind, and attempt to find ways to justify that conclusion. . . . This is pseudoscience.”
-
That post also contained the words, “The word eugenics can also be used to describe the concept of applying the principles of genetic science to human beings, in an effort to change the gene pool in some specific way. This is not pseudoscience, any more than selectively breeding better crops, faster horses, or specific breeds of dogs is pseudoscience.” It is not a violation of the terms of service to point out that the laws of science and the principles of genetics apply to human beings every bit as much as they apply to plants and animals. If any moderator has “banned others for far less,” that represents an inappropriate use of moderator power. (Not to mention the censorship of ideas which prompted me to want to leave in the first place.)
As for Imperious Leader’s posts: he keeps stating that the threads he’s closed had gone off-topic. It’s not clear why he feels the need to be a broken record on that point, when I’d already addressed it with my first post. I’d indicated that I have no objection to his requirement that threads stay on-topic. I do object, strongly, to the notion that it would never be appropriate to create a thread about, or discuss (for example) the Anglo-American food blockade of Germany during WWII, the effect that blockade had on Germany’s food situation, or whether Germany was able to feed all the people within its borders. Banning the discussion of certain ideas, or certain parts of history, because they are too “sensitive,” represents censorship of ideas. Politically correct censorship of ideas is not cool, and is not even remotely appropriate for a forum about WWII history.