From: lbs@tkmhp2.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Lech Borkowski)
Subject: Re: common Polish-Jewish-German action (was: Nazi Camps)
Reply-To: lbs@tkm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de
Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:03:07 GMT

In article <a6d038e7@random.se> ianf@random.se (Ian Feldman) writes:

>  Lech Borkowski choses to debate a sentence of mine that has been
>  lifted out of context and quoted by a previous poster.  Rather

 I read your original post before posting mine.

>  motivation, energy and knowledge to achieve) he contends himself
>  with trying to win an easy point by accusing me of using
>  ridiculous language etc.  Had he tried to understand what the
>  original chain of posts was about, the very ones that he hasn't
>  cared to examine, he might well have arrived at a wholly different

 Are you sure you know I haven't examined that?

>  and perhaps overall more fruitful conclusions. 

>  It is true that the narrow bandwith of the net doesn't lend itself
>  well for use of sarcasm, irony etc.  Still, from a purely-sematic
>  point of view these are all legitimate means of underscoring a
>  point & I happen to like using sarcasm and irony (and advocatus-
>  diaboli arguments) in my texts.  Of course, people that aren't
>  aware or deny outright lack of proficiency in a language that's
>  not their own do not make it easier on themselves by not giving
>  others the benefit of the doubt.  It's always easier to pounce on
>  a fellow poster rather than research the issue and make sure that
>  whatever one is objecting to hasn't been misunderstood nor taken
>  out of its proper setting. 

 Rest in peace. Don't worry about my knowledge of English. 
Sorry, I have never measured my IQ, if you have any suggestions
what would be my score, let me know 8-).

 On a more serious note, I thought the extensive use of sarcasm 
and irony was not the best form of expression on this issue 
(note the word "extensive"). This is my private opinion. 

>  I invite Lech B.  and other similarly-minded posters to look at
>  the original submissions of mine, rather than try to feed flames

 I said above that I read your original post before posting a follow up.

>  in public for misdeeds that are not of my own making.  I.e. anyone
>  seriously imagining that the following out-of-context sentence has
>  been written by me in earnest should have his head examined or
>  even exchanged for a cabbage ASAP:
>
>if>  When calling the camps "Polish" the editors are merely trying to
>if>  be accurate in geographical terms, isn't that right and, besides,
>if>  they're not _accusing_ the Poles of having been in charge, are
>if>  they? [rhetorical questions both].
>
>  Yet this is precisely what Lech Borkowski --nominally someone with
>  a scientific, thus perhaps "exact", background (since he mails from
>  an academic institution)-- does to a sentence of mine: he takes it

 unnecessary compliments... What else can be deducted from 
my e-mail adres? Note that I am posting this message from
an account in Germany at an academic institution... 
What does it mean? 

>  at its out-of-context face value and then proceeds to build a
>  veritable house of cards upon this his simplistic "Feldman is
>  ridiculous" conclusion.  Mw, I wonder who's the more ridiculous
>  here of the two of us.

 No, I disputed only your statements. You think it means I made
the conclusion "Feldman is ridiculous". 

>
>  springing the following tired-one-trick-pony act upon us --
>  arriving at conclusions where none exist:
>
>if>  Hmmm...  perhaps the Poles, that like to think of themselves as
>if>  more "churchy" and adhering to Christian values more than others,
>if>  ought to study and then live up to the intentions of the 1966
>if>  Polish Episcopate's letter to the German clergy, in which the
>if>  Polish bishops forgave the German people for past injustices and
>if>  asked to be forgiven for any of Polish own in return.

>lb> It is not a matter of forgiveness how you call the German Nazi
>lb> camps.  Forgiveness does not imply rewriting the history.  Sorry,
>lb> but I don't understand what type of "logic" you are using here, if
>lb> any.  With equal success you could claim that the concentration
>lb> camps did not exist at all. 

>  Well, if you do not understand my reasoning then there must be
>  some evening classes in Basic Philosophy 101 somewhere near in your
>  vicinity.  Perhaps you could bring this sentence & your response
>  up to debate in the class and have it analyzed for sematic content
>  and degree of appropriateness in relation to the subject matter. 
>  You stand to learn a whole lot.  Satisfaction guaranteed or your
>  money back, remember, klient ma zawsze racje.

 It would be more productive if you try to explain what 
the reconciliation with the Germans has to do with changing
the "German Nazi camps" into "Polish death camps".

>  Further still, Lechu B. arrives at some very far-reaching and
>  wide-of-the-mark conclusions:
>
>lb> The last two paragraphs are quite interesting.  No one here says
>lb> that when using the term "German Nazi camps" we are putting an
>lb> eternal blame for all generations of Germans to come. 
>
>  Actually, what the whole thread was about was the need for a
>  common Polish-German (and perhaps even -Jewish) action to educate
>  the media that the camps were "Nazi" or "Nazi-German" and never

 I seriously doubt the Polish-German action alone on this issue 
will be successful. We need Polish-Jewish-German action.
The Germans don't use the phrase "Polish death camps", I haven't
seen it in any of the German newspapers.

>  "Polish."  The Polish-Canadian Council quoted in the first article
>  (which Lech B. obviously hasn't read) seems to content itself
>  with pointing out that the camps were "German" to the media.
>  I disputed the effectivness of such an approach and suggested
>  an alternative, common-interest course of action.  Of course,
>  someone named Feldman cannot be counted upon to come up with
>  a balanced point of view, you were entirely right in this
>  respect, mister Be.
>

 The suggestion for the common action was a good one.
But I also think the Polish-Canadian Council was right.

>
>lb> Now, I really would like to know why Feldman so heartily objects
>lb> to calling those camps the German Nazi camps and sugests that we
>lb> accept them as "Polish camps"!
>
>  Interesting.  Now Borkowski has succeeded in deluding himself
>  that I should have suggested that.  I wonder what feats of
>  upside-down logick[tm] might have let him arrive at that?

 No need to get excited, that was a typo. 

>  Still, since he so eagerly awaits a reply to this posted
>  suggest-o-question, here comes the reply he expects: "Feldman 
>  does it all by default [whatever "it" might be] because,
>  obviously, he's either German or Jewish or both, ergo anti-
>  Polish."  How's that for a conclusion straight from Lechu B.
>  School of Preemptive Thought, Inc?
>
>

 No comment on the above few lines. 

>lb> concentration camps and thus implicitly suggest that there was a
>lb> common war-time German-Polish action as well. 
>
>  Wow!  Now I am guilty of harboring implicit thoughts that are said
>  to have originated in the nether regions of Borkowski's brain as
>  well. I never knew I had this power.  OK, lemme see if I can do
>  something about it, like manipulating him via Telepax [Telepathic
>  Control Transfer Protocol] from afar.  Sending a test message... 
>  now. 
>


 Received. Next time send a brain surgeon to examine my brain.

 Lech Borkowski
LBS@NEPTUNE.PHYS.UFL.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish,soc.culture.jewish