"Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Deep Frayed Morgues <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Europeans perhaps have no idea what it takes to liberate people from
    >>> dictatorships,
    >> More dictatorships have fallen in Europe than anywhere else, you
    >> ignorant peanut! The whole of eastern Europe was a series of
    >> dictatorships! Count 'em!
    > I think you're missing the point. Those people in Europe are still living
    > under the thumbs of despotic dictatorships - they have national health
    > insurance. Only Americans are truly free.
    > miguel
    > --
Miguel:

Since you moved Eastwards I started to think that you were losing your touch.
However, my faith in you is now restored!

JohnT

In article <211020042022485070%[email protected]>, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >In article <[email protected]>, Bill Moore
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> In article <211020041216304391%[email protected]>, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >In article <[email protected]>, Martin Bienwald
    >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Go Fig schrieb:
    >> >>
    >> >> > Humm, so you don't know about the 'Werwolf' youth
    >> >>
    >> >> Yes, I know about it - but AFAIK it was near meaningless after May 1945.
    >> >> It may have had some impact in the last months of the war, but most history
    >> >> books describe it as an overall failure.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Of course it failed !!
    >> >
    >> >But it was with some considerable success till it was eliminated.
    >> >
    >> >Alexander Perry Biddiscombe,Werwolf!: The History of the National
    >> >Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946
    >>
    >> Before you said it was up to '48. Now we seem to be down to '46.
    >That is where this author stopped, but the violence.
    >> What was the magnitude of it? This web page says they achieved
    >> little. Was this really in any way comparable to what is happening
    >> in Iraq?
    >No, cause the Rules of Engagement were far different, if a sniper took
    >a shot in Germany, it was likely to be returned by a round from a
    >Sherman tank... in Iraq the U.S. does not have the same authority...
    >heck they won't even fire a rifle shot at a mosque that is letting
    >loose RPGs.
    >>
    >> http://www.portal-ns.com/thecensure/werwolf2.htm
    >Good grief, you site this as a source, you may want to look at the root
    >level of the URL....

Yipes! I missed that.




    >http://www.portal-ns.com/thecensure/
    >Much of the information had been locked in USSR vaults, until the mid
    >90s.
    >jay
    >Thu Oct 21, 2004
    >mailto:[email protected]
    >
    >>
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> > and the killings and
    >> >> > constant threats against towards local people who stepped forward to
    >> >> > help the new Germany...
    >> >>
    >> >> I'm certain there were some threats by old (and younger) Nazis, but I
    >> >> haven't heard of more than a few actual killings.
    >> >>
    >> >> > to say nothing of the IED used against the
    >> >> > Russians ?
    >> >>
    >> >> How many of these occurred after Germany had officially surrendered?
    >> >>
    >> >> ... Martin
    >>

In article <[email protected]>,
Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On 2004-10-21 23:52:30 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
    >> Jeremy Henderson writes:
    >>
    >>> You need to look up the meaning of "ad hominem".
    >>
    >> Not now that I have this illustration.
    >http://www.just****inggoogleit.com/s...tum+ad+hominem

Now *that's* an ad hominem response!
.

In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
Morgues <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:36:20 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Europeans perhaps have no idea what it takes to liberate people from
    > >dictatorships,
    >
    > More dictatorships have fallen in Europe than anywhere else, you
    > ignorant peanut! The whole of eastern Europe was a series of
    > dictatorships! Count 'em!

Which European country liberated them ?

    >
    > Let me guess, you believe it takes a full scale invasion, with lots of
    > bombs and destruction to liberate people, yes? And you believe the
    > problems in Iraq are due to inadequate use of firepower?
    >
    > > but their own history books should note that until late
    > >'48... security was the still the number 1 problem in Germany. Seems
    > >there was all these young men killing off anyone who was trying to help
    > >transform the government to a representative body.
    >
    > You mention this often Jay, but no-one seems to be particularly aware
    > of any widespread problems. Just how many people were dying on a daily
    > basis there? More than in Iraq? I think not.
    >
    > And as usual, I bet you cannot provide a cite for your claim.

I cited a book solely on the subject!


jay
Fri Oct 22, 2004
mailto:[email protected]


    > ---
    > DFM

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:52:22 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >Morgues <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:36:20 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Europeans perhaps have no idea what it takes to liberate people from
    >> >dictatorships,
    >>
    >> More dictatorships have fallen in Europe than anywhere else, you
    >> ignorant peanut! The whole of eastern Europe was a series of
    >> dictatorships! Count 'em!
    >Which European country liberated them ?

They liberated themselves, and they couldn't have done it without
themselves. Aint that just one huge miracle? People solving their own
problems instead of someone interfering! Gee, who could have thought
that would happen.

Just which part of that would you like to take credit for?

    >> Let me guess, you believe it takes a full scale invasion, with lots of
    >> bombs and destruction to liberate people, yes? And you believe the
    >> problems in Iraq are due to inadequate use of firepower?
    >>
    >> > but their own history books should note that until late
    >> >'48... security was the still the number 1 problem in Germany. Seems
    >> >there was all these young men killing off anyone who was trying to help
    >> >transform the government to a representative body.
    >>
    >> You mention this often Jay, but no-one seems to be particularly aware
    >> of any widespread problems. Just how many people were dying on a daily
    >> basis there? More than in Iraq? I think not.
    >>
    >> And as usual, I bet you cannot provide a cite for your claim.
    >I cited a book solely on the subject!

And we are in an online forum, so could you provide an online
reference, coz I don't have much faith in pieces of paper sitting in
your hands. They might as well be toilet paper.
---
DFM

    >Those people in Europe are still living
    >under the thumbs of despotic dictatorships - they have national health
    >insurance. Only Americans are truly free.

Yup, those terrible despots who are forcing you to live rather than just die on
the street as should be your right.
-- Kimbis

In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:

    > poldy writes:
    >
    > > You read the digital versions?
    >
    > To a limited extent.

And yet, when it comes to digital photography...

poldy writes:

    > And yet, when it comes to digital photography...

I don't use digital cameras because they produce images inferior to
those that one can obtain from scanned film, and they do it at a price
that is as much as 100 times higher. Only people with a need for
extreme speed or a keen interest in gadgets shoot digitally.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:01:12 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >poldy writes:
    >> And yet, when it comes to digital photography...
    >I don't use digital cameras because they produce images inferior to
    >those that one can obtain from scanned film, and they do it at a price
    >that is as much as 100 times higher. Only people with a need for
    >extreme speed or a keen interest in gadgets shoot digitally.

The majority use digital cameras nowadays. Ilford has gone bust as a
result and Kodak aren't too happy either. There are far more
advantages in digital than you give. The cost of a good film scanner
is more than the cost of a reasonable digital camera. Where do you get
"100 times higher"?
--
Martin

On 2004-10-24 07:30:24 +0200, poldy <[email protected]> said:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> poldy writes:
    >>
    >>> You read the digital versions?
    >>
    >> To a limited extent.
    >
    > And yet, when it comes to digital photography...

Here we go again. You couldn't resist, could you? :-)

J;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:18:55 +0200, Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 2004-10-24 07:30:24 +0200, poldy <[email protected]> said:
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> poldy writes:
    >>>
    >>>> You read the digital versions?
    >>>
    >>> To a limited extent.
    >>
    >> And yet, when it comes to digital photography...
    >Here we go again. You couldn't resist, could you? :-)

Some might think that certain posters are making a sport of setting
him up :-)
--
Martin

[email protected] writes:

    > The majority use digital cameras nowadays.

The majority doesn't sell photographs professionally, and indeed cares
very little about the quality of photographs in general.

    > There are far more advantages in digital than you give.

Unfortunately, unless the two disadvantages I describe are fixed, it
doesn't matter.

    > The cost of a good film scanner is more than the cost of a
    > reasonable digital camera.

No, a good scanner is 2-5 times cheaper.

    > Where do you get "100 times higher"?

A digital back for $22,000 vs. a film SLR for $200.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:41:48 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> The majority use digital cameras nowadays.
    >The majority doesn't sell photographs professionally, and indeed cares
    >very little about the quality of photographs in general.

but the majority of people who do sell photographs professionally use
digital cameras, so selling professionally obviously isn't a
reasonable discriminator.

    >> The cost of a good film scanner is more than the cost of a
    >> reasonable digital camera.
    >No, a good scanner is 2-5 times cheaper.

You have an over 7000 USD scanner yet struggle to pay the rent?

    >> Where do you get "100 times higher"?
    >A digital back for $22,000 vs. a film SLR for $200.

a film SLR at $200 is not of anywhere near the same quality as what
you get with the $22,000 back.

Jim.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:41:48 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> The majority use digital cameras nowadays.
    >The majority doesn't sell photographs professionally, and indeed cares
    >very little about the quality of photographs in general.

nor do they want to sell photographs, most have found a more
profitable way of making a living. This doesn't mean they are not
interested in quality.

    >> There are far more advantages in digital than you give.
    >Unfortunately, unless the two disadvantages I describe are fixed, it
    >doesn't matter.
    >> The cost of a good film scanner is more than the cost of a
    >> reasonable digital camera.
    >No, a good scanner is 2-5 times cheaper.
    >> Where do you get "100 times higher"?
    >A digital back for $22,000 vs. a film SLR for $200.

and the cost of a good film scanner is ????

A really good quality pure digital camera costs far less than
USD22,000 .

I bet you still play music on a record player, "because CDs don't have
the same ambience"
--
Martin

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:53:28 +0200, nitram wrote:


    > I bet you still play music on a record player, "because CDs don't have
    > the same ambience"

Because CD recording loses (doesn't store) phase information, only
amplitude vs. frequency?