Daniel_M it is an unfair trick to make a statement like "excessive focus on the 'bad' is quite unhealthy." Unhealthy for whom ? It is in the same league as when I would ask you : "Are you still beating your wife ?" In both cases something is implied which isn't necessarily true. By trying to belittle Harry you try to turn the conversation in your favour. There is absolutely nothing wrong with examining facts. The logical conclusion is that the people who disagree have an (often secret) agenda to hide the truth. THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE freealways
Oh I already guess : I must appear as a caricature of Super Mumbo Jumbo You don't know Super Mumbo Jumbo ? I just invented him
Hey can you tell me why you blame germans at that time not to see who was Hitler although they deny they didn't know ? What's the difference with some of you today who also deny that this can be although there are some facts ? Because we are still in democracy ? Yeah today but in 5 or 10 years ? Hitler has prepared during 10 years at least before achieving his goal.
No, not quite, but it is a telling self description. The character was a fanatical paranoid, given to inventing and promoting the wildest and most absurd conspiracy stories. Like you. But he stumbled upon a real conspiracy, and the bad guys went to get him. Like you? Watch it Harry, one of those tall tales might come back and bite you in the ass (with teeth laced with a new germ invented by a secret govt. commission designed to propogate in individuals given to beleiving in government secret commissions. The germ is harmless but secretes pacifying compounds, rendering the host placid)
What theory ? I speak of news can you read at the head of the thread: "Daily News 12/7/98 " Are you a negationist or a revisionist of history just tell me ? So let's not discuss abouth theory but about THIS news. What do you think about THIS news ? I mean THIS news and not another one. So stick with THIS news. I hope you just understand what I mean: don't try to escape with generalities about theories when a fact is presented to you, that when it annoyed you, you look to escape with generalities. So I insist do you have an opinion about THIS news. Did you only hear about that piece of story before ? Don't confuse me with a fanatic. A fanatic don't make reasoning with facts. I use facts. It is you who are fanatics since you refuse facts. I have a scientific mind and just read einstein's quote yes I can have dogged endurance also but not fanatism and I have no sects, no political parties to defend.
Well, The Chase story probably has some elements of truth to it, as many large American firms had offices in and/or dealings with Nazi Germany prior to the outbreak of WW2. That is my opinion. The Rockefellers, Nelson in particular, had a significant role in the founding of the Museum of Modern Art, however, they do not control it. A board does and Ronald Lauder (a Jew) is head of that board now and Agnes Gund is President. Nazi confiscated artwork still unreturned should be repatrioted to the original owners. Germany should be ultimately financially responsible for these thefts. That is, if heirs of a Nazi victim can prove that a work in a collection belonged to thier ascendant and was confiscated, then the courts ought to order their return and Germany (or Austria, or the confiscating country) be forced to purchase them from the current "owners" as compensation, as the current owners almost universally bought these works in good faith. Many of these works entered the art market after WW2 with false provenances to lubricate thier sales. MOMA has not been charged with holding confiscated artwork in thier collection.