Did Craig say "Hitler was no Hitler"?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Did Craig say "Hitler was no Hitler"? Well, I'll admit to paraphrasing. Craig did say Tim Eyman was no Hitler, and, later, in parentheses, Craig says neither was Hitler.

Let the forum decide how to interpret Craig's words. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. We all say things we wish we would've worded a little differently.

A lot of things Craig implies are illogical. Implying "Hitler was no Hitler" is just par for the course.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 18, 2000

Answers

I've long abandoned direct arguments with craigster.

He's the kind of person that knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.


Here's my paraphrase of Craig's words: "Eyman is no Hitler...(For that matter, neither was Hitler...". My conclusion? Craig implies "Hitler was no Hitler"!!!

Oh, by the way, I've posted the text below. It's from a thread, asking for help defending I-695.

Craig was responding to the following text (from Anirudh, I believe):

"Interestingly, I think that Craig is one of their well-meaning victims too, though he is determined not to see it himself."

Craig's response:

"Interestingly, I think Anirudh is both naive and prone to demagoguery. Eyman is no Hitler who tricked unsuspecting German citizens into committing mass murder against their will. (For that matter, neither was Hitler. Like any other human being, the responsibility for their actions rests with the people who did the mass murders). The victims are those people with legitimate needs who aren't getting them met because the budget goes to the bureaucracy and the special interest groups who have been paying off one political party or the other for decades. Follow the money, ladies and gentlemen. If the costs are exorbitant (the $300 million Narrows Bridge just became a $650 million Narrows Bridge, one might of thought that would have been mentioned in the vote) the taxpayers are being cheated twice, once by the contractor or bureaucrat who is demanding a premium for their services (in reality a premium for their past political contributions to the politicians involved) and a second time by the politician who has a duty of due diligence to the taxpayers that they represent."

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 18, 2000.


If you read that statement, it says that Hitler was not someone who tricked people into murdering people against their will, not that he wasn't Hitler.

Matt, it would be advisable for you to fully read and seriously consider other people's opinions and actually make an effort to understand these opinion before you criticize them.

"He's the kind of person that knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing." And CS, I believe our differences are of a more philosophical sort, and this quote typifies this. I really want a rational basis for actions that are taken by my government. You really want an emotional one. I can be as emotional as the next, but for government to work it's helpful if it acknowledges geometry, geography, physics, economics, etc. Because contrary to the 60s rhetoric that one should never be judgemental, there are functional and dysfunctional societies. One could make the argument that the ideal of the USSR and Communism "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need," was a much more humane philosophy than a free-market "let's all be greedy," philosophy, but the reality is that it couldn't even adequately feed it's people, and like many dysfunctional cultures, ultimately failed. REALITY does have this terrible habit of intruding on philosophy. the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 18, 2000.

Response to Did Craig say Hitler

I haven't read this forum in a while. . .I come back to this. . .why did I leave??

"Here's my paraphrase of Craig's words: "Eyman is no Hitler...(For that matter, neither was Hitler...". My conclusion? Craig implies "Hitler was no Hitler"!!!"

If your goal was to be misleading and fling an ad hominem attack at your opponent. . .well, you've tried and failed. You're too stupid to even succeed at these two trivialities. Presumably, for dramatic effect, you create your own failure by posting Craig's actual words. At this point, I should call you a baboon, but that just wouldn't be fair.

"Eyman is no Hitler who tricked unsuspecting German citizens into committing mass murder against their will. (For that matter, neither was Hitler. Like any other human being, the responsibility for their actions rests with the people who did the mass murders)."

Of course, anyone with the most minute bit of reading comprehension skill would "get it"--that neither Eyman nor Hitler tricked any of their supporters into anything we're all accountable for our *own* actions.

WRT your original post, I found the following particularly barfable--"Let the forum decide how to interpret Craig's words. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. We all say things we wish we would've worded a little differently." You dishonestly mangle someone's words in the hope of smearing them and it's just "bygones." Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

"A lot of things Craig implies are illogical."

This made me laugh out loud. Without meaning to do so, you just paid Craig a huge compliment.

Don't worry every message board needs a resident kook. . .in the beginning, there was maddjak. Shortly after, there was Tony and wife (Donna?). Who do you think it is now?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), May 18, 2000.


to Brad: I did not "mangle" Craig's words. When I first read his post way back when, I laughed because I interepreted his words as implying "Hitler was no Hitler". That's MY interpretation.

Furthermore, I did not make a ad hominem attack on Craig. Craig specifically asked me where he said "Hitler was no Hitler". An ad hominem attack would be to call someone a "crazy kook".

My advice to you, Brad, is to mind your own business. Craig and I can take care of ourselves.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 18, 2000.



Matthew,

You invited comment by this post,

"Let the forum decide how to interpret Craig's words. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. We all say things we wish we would've worded a little differently."

And when you get one you don't like, you make the comment "My advice to you, Brad, is to mind your own business."

You were wrong in your interpretation and you were called on it. Such an angry little boy response. It bothers me that you are raising children when you are obviously still a child yourself.....

-- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.


"An ad hominem attack would be to call someone a "crazy kook".

Actually, that is incorrect. An ad hominem attack would be when you attack an opinion of someone based upon allegations that they are a crazy kook, and therefore their idea should be rejected out of hand.

Brad explained why your argument was in error. He called you a crazy kook, simply because you ARE a crazy kook. It was a simple characterization, not an ad hominem attack.

Brad is correct only in a general sort of way. You in fact have narcissistic personality disorder. That's a professional opinion, based upon you meeting the criteria, not an ad hominem attack.

As long as I pay my $225/yr to the Medical Quality Assurance Board, I'm entitled to have such opinions.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.


"As long as I pay my $225/yr to the Medical Quality Assurance Board, I'm entitled to have such opinions. "

IS ZOWIE A SHRINK??

Thought all shrinks were bleeding heart liberals?

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 18, 2000.


A conservative is a liberal with a daughter in junior high school.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.


to Craig: You describe communism as: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

My own personal philosophy is : "From each according to their ability, to each according to their performance". As long as a system rewards top-quartile performers above and beyond bottom- quartile performers, it's going to be a successful system. IMHO.

By the way, Craig, I understood your "Hitler was no Hitler" post when you first posted it. But, you will forever be linked in my mind with my paraphrase of "Hitler was no Hitler". It makes me laugh. It cracks me up. I'm sorry, but that's how I summarized your post.

It's like the new Sacawega dollar coin. I predict the public will refer to it as the "Pocahantas". Life is funny (although you may fail to see the humor, at this time).

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.



to Marhsa: I did not act like an angry little boy, and you are as guilty as Brad in making an ad hominem attack.

Brad accused me of making an ad hominem attack. I did no such thing. Craig asked me where he posted "Hitler was no Hitler". I admitted to paraphrasing Craig's words. I displayed the entire text, so others could see that I was also paraphrasing out of context. Therefore, I made no ad hominem attack.

I had every right to lash out at Brad. But, you know what, "We all say things we wish we would've worded a little differently."

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.


to zowie: You make me laugh so much, if anyone can call me a "kook", you can. A person should be judged by the totality of their actions, weighing the good against the bad. For all the times you make me laugh, you should be allowed to poke fun at me, too.

Actually, I have the opposite of a narcissistic personality disorder. My main flaw is that I'm overly humble.

Not many people know that I was born in a log cabin I built with my own hands. Or that I taught myself how to read by reading a book I wrote, entitled "Learning How To Read". Or that as a child I got up at 3 AM to chop wood to pay for the books I carried to school, ten miles through desert and snow, uphill both ways.

In fact, most people (if not all) would find it downright unbelievable!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.


" Not many people know that I was born in a log cabin I built with my own hands. Or that I taught myself how to read by reading a book I wrote, entitled "Learning How To Read". Or that as a child I got up at 3 AM to chop wood to pay for the books I carried to school, ten miles through desert and snow, uphill both ways. "

We are all humbled to learn that Al Gore has been posting to this forum under the pseudonym of Matthew M. Warren.

I certainly hope none of you Secret Service guys took any offense at the innocent jesting I did with Mr. Warren before I knew who he was. Your obedient servant, zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ