Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

whatwhat wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germanie's perceptions.

Here is the initial comment:

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
No one lives in a vaccuum, the Israelis have had more than enough invasions and attacks happen to them to be more than apprehensive about their neighbors. Not saying it's right, but it's far too easy to sit in judgement when you don't have rockets and bombs assailing your country everyday.

This is also true of Nazi Germany, should we not judge them either?

I've placed the relevant sections in bold.

As I've already said that I should have said that I wasn't referring to the incidence of terrorism. But the rest should be plain as day.

At this point its clear to me that you are either unwilling, or unable, to understand my point.

whatwhat wrote:
Grammar Nazi in a thread about Nazis. Excellent.

No, that's a misuse of the term. A Grammar Nazi is one who complains about poor grammar without cause. Your poor grammar directly impedes my ability to understand what you're talking about, so I have cause to reference it.

whatwhat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. Not particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.

Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germany's perceptions.

I'm not clear what you mean by "original comparison". Dogma said that there were parallels between Nazi Germany's and Israel's positions. Emperor's Faithful said he disagreed, in part because Nazi Germany was not surrounded by hostile countries (until the end of WWII, anyway). Dogma contradicted this, pointing out that in the perceptions of Germans, they were in fact surrounded by hostile countries, with "hostile" in their perceptions being largely defined by the outcome of WWI.,

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germanie's perceptions.

Here is the initial comment:

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
No one lives in a vaccuum, the Israelis have had more than enough invasions and attacks happen to them to be more than apprehensive about their neighbors. Not saying it's right, but it's far too easy to sit in judgement when you don't have rockets and bombs assailing your country everyday.

This is also true of Nazi Germany, should we not judge them either?

I've placed the relevant sections in bold.

As I've already said that I should have said that I wasn't referring to the incidence of terrorism. But the rest should be plain as day.

At this point its clear to me that you are either unwilling, or unable, to understand my point.

whatwhat wrote:
Grammar Nazi in a thread about Nazis. Excellent.

No, that's a misuse of the term. A Grammar Nazi is one who complains about poor grammar without cause. Your poor grammar directly impedes my ability to understand what you're talking about, so I have cause to reference it.

Actually the orginal comment which you responded to by referencing World War One is what I'm talking about, the response which I took issue with.

Quite frankly if you can't get what I'm talking about because I mispell you're then your allways going to have that probelm. I've made sense in everything I have said. You're only bring this up because you've lost every other part of this argument.

Mannahnin wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. Not particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.

Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germany's perceptions.

I'm not clear what you mean by "original comparison". Dogma said that there were parallels between Nazi Germany's and Israel's positions. Emperor's Faithful said he disagreed, in part because Nazi Germany was not surrounded by hostile countries (until the end of WWII, anyway). Dogma contradicted this, pointing out that in the perceptions of Germans, they were in fact surrounded by hostile countries, with "hostile" in their perceptions being largely defined by the outcome of WWI.,

Which is a dumb argument because EF was not talking about the perceptions of germans he was talking about hostile countries around Israel and Germany.

The fact you had to include "hostile" in quotes should say someting to you.

whatwhat wrote:
Actually the orginal comment which you responded to by referencing World War One is what I'm talking about, the response which I took issue with.

Yes, and I have explained exactly why I did that several times now. Two other posters have also made attempts to explain it to you.

You clearly don't consider it to be a legitimate reference, but you haven't provided a good reason as to why.

whatwhat wrote:
Quite frankly if you can't get what I'm talking about because I mispell you're then your allways going to have that probelm. I've made sense in everything I have said. You're only bring this up because you've lost every other part of this argument.

A few misspelling are inevitable, as are incidences of strained grammar, but you often do both with great frequency and that makes your posts difficult to read at times. Whether or not it will always be problem that certain people doesn't change the fact that its present.

But at any rate, I'm bringing it up in order to give a partial explanation as to why I misread one of your posts. Its constructive criticism, not an insult.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Actually the orginal comment which you responded to by referencing World War One is what I'm talking about, the response which I took issue with.

Yes, and I have explained exactly why I did that several times now. Two other posters have also made attempts to explain it to you.

You clearly don't consider it to be a legitimate reference, but you haven't provided a good reason as to why.

whatwhat wrote:
Quite frankly if you can't get what I'm talking about because I mispell you're then your allways going to have that probelm. I've made sense in everything I have said. You're only bring this up because you've lost every other part of this argument.

A few misspelling are inevitable, as are incidences of strained grammar, but you often do both with great frequency and that makes your posts difficult to read at times. Whether or not it will always be problem that certain people doesn't change the fact that its present.

But at any rate, I'm bringing it up in order to give a partial explanation as to why I misread one of your posts. Its constructive criticism, not an insult.

I didn't take it as an insult. I took it as you clutching at straws. Which is what it was. I can't really see how with a thousand more grammer and spelling mistakes you can misread me as making the point you accused me of making.

whatwhat wrote:
Which is a dumb argument because EF was not talking about the perceptions of germans he was talking about hostile countries around Israel and Germany.

Yes, and there was a fairly clear misunderstanding that took two additional posts to clarify.

Recall that EF was responding to my point with his initial comment.

Monster Rain wrote:Saints preserve us.

I forgot that the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany were constantly calling for Germany's destruction and they had had to build a wall around Berlin to keep Judaic Fundamentalist suicide bombers away from the German civilians. These 30 Rabbis' wives opinions are somehow Israeli policy, too? This thread is bad... you know the rest.

It's exactly the same thing, you're right.

QFT ...

whatwhat wrote:
I didn't take it as an insult. I took it as you clutching at straws. Which is what it was. I can't really see how with a thousand more grammer and spelling mistakes you can misread me as making the point you accused me of making.

That's your prerogative of course, I'm merely telling you what occurred. You can believe that or not, its not my concern.

I do, however, find it interesting that, instead of actually mounting an argument, you feel the need to reiterate for us all the degree to which you feel that you're correct.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Which is a dumb argument because EF was not talking about the perceptions of germans he was talking about hostile countries around Israel and Germany.

Yes, and there was a fairly clear misunderstanding that took two additional posts to clarify.

Recall that EF was responding to my point with his initial comment.

No because you had aknowledged his misunderstanding of your point and were responding on that level.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
I didn't take it as an insult. I took it as you clutching at straws. Which is what it was. I can't really see how with a thousand more grammer and spelling mistakes you can misread me as making the point you accused me of making.

That's your prerogative of course, I'm merely telling you what occurred. You can believe that or not, its not my concern.

I do, however, find it interesting that, instead of actually mounting an argument, you feel the need to reiterate for us all the degree to which you feel that you're correct.

I'm responding to your comments on my grammar which you feel the need to make instead of mounting an argument.

whatwhat wrote:
No because you had aknowledged his misunderstanding of your point and were responding on that level.

Are you agreeing with me, or did you meant to say "not" instead of "no"?

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
No because you had aknowledged his misunderstanding of your point and were responding on that level.

Are you agreeing with me, or did you meant to say "not" instead of "no"?

Fialry clear really. Maybe it's implicit but then I'd hope you can figure it out. Is this really the kind of things you are having trouble with dogma?

If that's the kind of thing you're talking about and you can misread me as saying perceptions of German people are not relevant at all to what the German people actually do on the basis of spelling and grammar mistakes. Then perhaps the problem is your reading.

whatwhat wrote: I've made sense in everything I have said. You're only bring this up because you've lost every other part of this argument.

With respect, I have to disagree with all three of these opinions.

whatwhat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. Not particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.

Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germany's perceptions.

I'm not clear what you mean by "original comparison". Dogma said that there were parallels between Nazi Germany's and Israel's positions. Emperor's Faithful said he disagreed, in part because Nazi Germany was not surrounded by hostile countries (until the end of WWII, anyway). Dogma contradicted this, pointing out that in the perceptions of Germans, they were in fact surrounded by hostile countries, with "hostile" in their perceptions being largely defined by the outcome of WWI.,

Which is a dumb argument because EF was not talking about the perceptions of germans he was talking about hostile countries around Israel and Germany.

The fact you had to include "hostile" in quotes should say someting to you.

It's not a dumb argument at all. As Dogma stated explicitly later, a person's (or people's) behavior is dependent on what they perceive to be true, not on what necessarily is true. In terms of making sense out of why some/many Israelis nowadays might think/behave like some/many Germans did prior to WW2, you naturally want to look at their situation and their perception of that situation. Them both seeing themselves as surrounded by hostile nations is a totally legitimate comparison.

whatwhat wrote:
I'm responding to your comments on my grammar which you feel the need to make instead of mounting an argument.

I have made an argument, though at this point its more a matter of explanation.

The grammar comment was a little side issue that I noticed in the course of reading your words.

whatwhat wrote:
Fialry clear really. Maybe it's implicit but then I'd hope you can figure it out. Is this really the kind of things you are having trouble with dogma?

It really isn't. I may seem that way because they're your words, and you know your intention, but I don't.

All I can do is read what you wrote, and using "no" instead of "not" completely changes the meaning of that sentence. After all, its quite possible that you have come to agree with me, I can't see or hear you, so I have no way of knowing; assuming that I could would be poor form, as people often change their demeanor quite quickly.

Of course, you could simply correct your mistake, and explain what you meant, but I'm fairly certain that you aren't really objecting to the argument, so much as the arguer.

Your'e seperating his argument from what he is responding to, again.

The Israelis are nothing like the Nazis.

For example, they haven't built secret bases under the polar ice caps.

whatwhat wrote:Your'e seperating his argument from what he is responding to, again.

Now I'm really confused. I found Dogma's arguments pretty easy to follow, then found most of your arguments reasonably easy to follow (though I disagreed with them), but at this point you've lost me completely.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
I'm responding to your comments on my grammar which you feel the need to make instead of mounting an argument.

I have made an argument, though at this point its more a matter of explanation.

The grammar comment was a little side issue that I noticed in the course of reading your words.

whatwhat wrote:
Fialry clear really. Maybe it's implicit but then I'd hope you can figure it out. Is this really the kind of things you are having trouble with dogma?

It really isn't. I may seem that way because they're your words, and you know your intention, but I don't.

All I can do is read what you wrote, and using "no" instead of "not" completely changes the meaning of that sentence. After all, its quite possible that you have come to agree with me, I can't see or hear you, so I have no way of knowing; assuming that I could would be poor form, as people often change their demeanor quite quickly.

Of course, you could simply correct your mistake, and explain what you meant, but I'm fairly certain that you aren't really objecting to the argument, so much as the arguer.

There was no mistake. Read it dummy.

NO because you had aknowledged Emperors Faithfulls msiundersatnding of your original point point and were responding (the response to his post) on that level. I.e. You knew what he meant when you responded to him.

Mannahnin wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Your'e seperating his argument from what he is responding to, again.

Now I'm really confused. I found Dogma's arguments pretty easy to follow, then found most of your arguments reasonably easy to follow (though I disagreed with them), but at this point you've lost me completely.

Monster Rain wrote:The Israelis are nothing like the Nazis.

For example, they haven't built secret bases under the polar ice caps.

Of course not. We built them and sold them to Israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:There was no mistiake. Read it dummy.

What do you think the outcome is likely to be of you flaming another poster, when you know there's a Moderator looking at the thread right now?

Mannahnin wrote:What do you think the outcome is likely to be of you flaming another poster, when you know there's a Moderator looking at the thread right now?

Actually I didn't know that.(only just notcied you were a mod) But then I don't really care. If I'm honest.

whatwhat wrote:
If that's the kind of thing you're talking about and you can misread me as saying perceptions of German people are not relevant at all to what the German people actually do on the basis of spelling and grammar mistakes. Then perhaps the problem is your reading.

Perhaps, but I am apparently competent enough to realize that you didn't say the above. Rather, you said this:

No that's a completely different thing. You were stating Nazi Germany was a paralel to israel because it was sorounded by hostile nations. That really doesn't have any weight when your considering Nazi Germany's and the german populations preception of them as aposed to the other way around.

Those may mean the same thing, but are still different turns of phrase, so it makes no sense to claim my reading skills are poor on the basis of a rephrased form of the same idea; its dishonest to do so.

In any case, you first misstated my argument (the bold portion), and then made a marginally intelligible comment (the italicized portion) regarding perception that I mistook to be a dismissal of perception due the bit about the lack of weight. I struggled with this because you didn't properly explain what lacks weight, as the actual presence of hostile nations around a given nation would most certainly impact the perception of foreign hostility within the nation in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
There was no mistake. Read it dummy.

NO because you had aknowledged Emperors Faithfulls msiundersatnding of your original point point and were responding (the response to his post) on that level. I.e. You knew what he meant when you responded to him.

I did read it, and its difficult to understand because of the poor grammar.

Even your explanation is difficult to follow, because if I acknowledged EFs misunderstanding, and then responded on a level consistent with his misunderstanding, then you're just agreeing with me; which is evidently not what you intended given that it would be quite easy to simply say otherwise, and you haven't done so.

whatwhat wrote:
Then you have lost us all because even dogma aknowledges a misunderstanding.

I generally understand the argument you're trying to make, it's the specific points of contention that I'm struggling with because they rely on more precise writing than you have employed.

You two are real pals eh?

whatwhat calm down, dogma stop being a grammar nazi

can we please get back to the main topic of this thread? which is how stupid the title is... i mean document by radical rabbi's wives

Yeah! Wait, what? ...And why is this my fault?

All I've gathered from this thread is that the Nazis have sabotaged whatwhat's grammar, and that Israel was surrounded by hostile enemies after WWI.

Did I miss anything?

I'm confused. Who was invading and launching missiles into Nazi Germany?

Palestinians, IIRC.

Or was it 30 Rabbis' wives?

It was Palistinians controlled by the Jewish New World Order which in turn is controlled by their angry wives with large noses.

Right?

I have it on good authority that she is involved.

This thing stinks to the top.

Already our enlightened followers are speading the truth.

Hmm, well having opinionated jewish family probably VASTLY biases my opinion....But good for them JK

Israel is taking steps towards either an arab free country, or it's death. They seem to forget that everyone is the freaking world wants them dead. They really need to play their moves cooler, and stop upsetting so many people with these sort of things. It seems like every week you hear something about the israelis pissing off someone.... They are indeed a powerful country. They've made a nice niche for themselves in the world economy The jewish population finally has somewhere to go, after 1800 years of pilgrimage and suffering. But that could all go down the toilet if they don't stop pissing off the ragheads (isn't that a clever slang term? It's like kraut, or jap. Very descriptive.) and stealing little pieces of crappy land from them....