From: s1137020@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Mariusz Prokopczyk)
Subject: Re: To Mariusz
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:01:01 GMT

In article <87119@netnews.upenn.edu>
kkniaz@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Krzysztof W. Kniaz) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug26.185504.18004@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>s1137020@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Mariusz Prokopczyk) writes

At first I intended not to answer on your article, but because you
quite often published in this group I do not want you to think I am
ignoring you. So here you are:

>(Mariusz about Ian Feldman text)
>
>>I am astonished by your "excellent" evaluation whether Poles did or did not
>>do enough to save Jewish or Gypsies. I would like to know what is your
>>basis to come to such conclusions.
>
>Perhaps you should read some honest history books - Bartoszewski would
>be the best choice.

Who is he? One of writers on the Jewish martyrology and Polish oppression?
I apologize for that sarcasm.

First of all lets quote Ian:
    >  Well, to set the record straight, the Poles are indeed guilty of
    >  disorganized oppression of their minorities, both before, during
    >  and after the WWII.  They didn't do enough to save their Jewish
    >  and Gypsy brethren because, as prof.  Wladyslaw Bartoszewski once
    >  pointed out, "they are of this land but not to our liking" ("on
    >  jest z ojczyzny mojej, ale go nie lubie").

Well, for whom his evaluation is a straight record?
Most certainly not for me, especially if expressed by my enemy!
(and he is to me already after his first article for deceiving Poles
not to reply to the appeal using apparently logic explanations)

Next note that my rhetoric question was directed to Ian. I call it rhetoric
because I do not believe that anybody can make non-biased evaluation on
such subject, no matter how carefully he would collect historical facts
and documents. How you are going to define what is enough and what is not?
How you are going to measure it? What for you is not enough, for me can be
too much, agree?

From my point of view many Poles risked or even paid with their lives for
helping Jews, so I would rather call them heroes. I most certainly agree
that there were some antysemitic elements in Polish society. I do not know
to what extend one may call it a common attitude and what was the scale of
the emotional strength of that attitude. Calling it intolerance, prejudice
etc. is probably the easiest solution to describe the problem. A little
harder is to try to find the reason and eventually eradicate its sources.

Did I make myself clear why your answer is not a solution to my rhetoric
question?

In any circumstances it would be an insult to me if anyone would suggest
my guilt through generalization for something what someone else has done,
even if I would agree that other Poles were or are guilty of some bad
actions.
(Have you noticed that "... the Poles are indeed guilty ..."?)
                                      ^^^ ps.MP

>> May be not enough Poles had lost
>>their lives for protecting others?
>
>You can hardly use this argument here. Nobody denies the fact, that
>Poles were victims too (well, almost nobody), problem is; how many
>Poles took an active part in the extermination of Jews. Jewish
>survivers say many...but admitt that there was no organized antisemitic
>action within the polish society.

Did it ever occured to you why(!) there were antysemitic emotions?
Or do Jews treat themselves as angels whom bad Poles persecute?
If you got brain, just think - think "why?" (not only "how?" - sorry,
that is another sarcasm.)

Now try to explain it to me why "You can hardly use this argument here."?
I will tell you more if I got your answer, OK?
I have impression that you like to question people but rarely answer
on their questions. Does a below question ring a bell as well?

"How do you know Krzysztof, that Matthew was wrong ?" Aleksander Mazur

I did not see your answer till this time.

>>[...]I am slowly getting the picture why there were so many
>>antysemitic reactions in polish society. Shall we start to list what
>>Jews were doing in Poland before, during and after IIWW to counter
>>your opinions?
>>
>Care to elaborate on that? ie list the evil things Jews did to Poles
>before, during and after WWII.

Again, you have not noticed that this is another rhetoric question, at
least from my point of view. Let me add what was in the removed part:
>>From seeing the hatred to Poles expressed by many Jewish authors
>>writing here, I am ...
If it does not appear that way too you now, it can only mean that you
would be quite happy when both sides would throw the worst accusations
against each other. (and I assure you it would end up that way)
My point here was to underline the senselessness of such actions.
Do you really think that if you accuse the other side of something
it will start to love or respect you? If not, then what do you need that
elaboration on it for?

>>I can see you are really starting to use not only unfounded accusations
>>but also clearly offending language.[...]
>
>Can you understand sarcasm?

I would say most often - yes. And in this case this sarcasm sounds to me
very offending. But to make sure that we are talking of the same thing
give me please some details:
From which point it starts and where it ends?
What it conveys? Shall I enjoy it? and If yes, why?

>Advocatus diaboli ring the bell?

Yes. Do you want definition?
Who played that role? John Reece or Ian Feldman?

>>You are trying to be smart Ian, but judging from what you are saying
>>I doubt if you are intelligent enough to fool anybody.
>>
>>Mariusz Prokopczyk
>
>IMHO Ian's text was carefull and wise , you certainly have right to
>criticise him Mariusz, however I would refrain from judging someone's
>intelligence and especially from anouncing it on the network.

Geeeee!
Careful? What you mean by careful? At first, maybe you can name it that,
but surely not enough. The trick was clearly visible.
Wise? You again would need to explain it to me at which point.
Were was that wisdom hiding that I could not find?
Deceitful and provocative - yes! And I could elaborate (modern word
since its first appearance here) on this topic, since I did not express
myself fully. I tend to withhold aggressive opinions at first, to allow
other side for possible withdrawal if a mistake has been done.

When it comes to judging someones intelligence I always do that,
however usually I am holding the direct evaluation for myself.
This behaviour is usually modified if someone visibly ignores my
feelings with his own expressions. If you got any more questions
I am prepared to answer them, but ... first I am awaiting your
answers!

Mariusz

PS. The second reason (for using rhetorical question only) is because I
    did not expect any answers from Ian. I think I have made it clear
    at the end of my article, as it would be for me a big displeasure
    to discuss anything with him after what he wrote.

PS/PS. Czy przeszkodzi ci jezeli bede uzywal jezyka polskiego?
       Widze ze to i tak zostaje tylko w polskiej grupie.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish