Subject: Re: Societal differences and rudeness calibration
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/09/30
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Gareth McCaughan <>
| I took Erik's words to mean that the *German* people were led to a future
| that was disastrous *because it included the Holocaust and the other
| atrocities of the Nazis*, which is neither what it transpires Erik
| actually meant nor what he's saying Erann Gat thought he meant.

  it's actually a fairly good statement of what I meant, but I was myself
  trying to figure out this Holocaust accusation and had probably shifted
  the time focus from when I wrote it because of the ridiculous attacks for
  weeks.  my concern at the time I wrote it was the German people and how
  the propaganda affected them, namely that they went to war in the first
  place, which certainly is disastrous for all parties involved, and that
  the war was _prolonged_ way beyond the point of actual defeat mostly
  because of the successful propaganda, which caused most of the atrocities
  and loss of life on all sides.

| Possibly in Erik's idiolect "disastrous" always means "disastrous for the
| people just mentioned", so that the German people's future wouldn't have
| been "disastrous" if Hitler had won WW2.

  wars aren't won.  war is always a _huge_ loss to all parties involved.
  (other things are won _in_ wars, however, such as control over land or
  natural resources.)  I think the exact same thing about other fights,
  including USENET fights and boxing: neither party can "win" by engaging
  in it in the first place -- all you can hope for is to minimize the
  losses.  I have tried to defend myself against the accusation that I am
  diminishing the tragedy of the Holocaust (the accusation is obviously
  that it is on purpose -- I can't possibly be responsible if someone feels
  unease at facts) and the ridiculous accusation that I brought it up.