"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message 
news:BD9BC081.29A25%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> in article 2tkihtF1u6qi4U1@uni-berlin.de, m.yoshida at masa@yahoo.co.jp
> wrote on 10/19/04 10:18 PM:
>
>> "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
>> news:BD9B121F.298FB%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
>>> in article 2tk55uF215ktfU1@uni-berlin.de, m.yoshida at masa@yahoo.co.jp
>>> wrote on 10/19/04 6:30 PM:
>>>
>>>> "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
>>>> One of the reasons why Japanese scholars of modern history use the
>>>> term "Nanking Incident" would be that the debate is included a question
>>>> whether or not the "Rape" really took place.  If they use the term "Rape
>>>> of Nanking"you like, then it follows that they have to argue on the
>>>> assumption that the "Rape" really happened.  As a scholar they are
>>>> unwilling to deal with such an unexamined conviction.
>>>
>>> The Rape of Nanking didn't happen? I suppose you believe the Holocaust
>>> didn't happen either? This act of denial is telling, as telling as the
>>> denial of the Holocaust by neo-Nazis.
>>
>> I have already said that my position is close to Professor Hata's one.
>> I estimate the number of the Chinese victims at 40,000-50,000. If you
>> still suppose I believe the incident didn't happen, I doubt about your
>> ability of English. My mother used to say "Don't tell a lie, Masayuki".
>
> Okay, so you estimate the number of Chinese victims at 40,000-50,000, so why
> do you say: "One of the reasons why Japanese scholars of modern history use
> the term "Nanking Incident" would be that the debate is included a question
> whether or not the "Rape" really took place."
>
> Do you think the rape occurred? Do you doubt that the Japanese military
> committed atrocities? Do you think the 40,000-50,000 deaths were justified?
>
> There seems to be a conflict between your most recent statement and that of
> the time before. I am not trying to trick you, instead I am trying to get
> you to clarify your remarks.
>
> By the way, I doubt the high numbers of the Chinese estimates and the real
> low numbers of the Japanese apologists. I don't doubt that rape and murder
> was used as a military tactic to scare other Chinese cities into surrender.

http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/Nanjing/nanjing4.html

>>>>> If I had read more books in Japanese would it mean that your comments would
>>>>> sound a tad less bigoted or more bigoted? If so, why?
>>>>
>>>> Whatever you may say, it is just a description, which means you have
>>>> not given an explanation.  I don't think I'm bigoted.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that you believe you are not bigoted. You simply feel
>>> superior to the Chinese
>>
>> No. I like Chinese people and things, such as old poems, foods,
>
> I judged you a bigot because of your general remarks about the Chinese
> people as over-emotional, over-political, and having a tendency to
> exaggerate. I asked for clarification if you really believed that, and you
> affirmed that you did feel that way. Are you willing to admit that your
> statements were a tad extreme and don't really reflect your true opinion of
> the Chinese people?

I bet you that you are more emotional and political than Chinese,
Mr. Schaal.

>>> because they are so "political" and "emotional" and
>>> they "prefer exaggerations." I am sure the average Nazi didn't feel bigoted
>>> either.
>>>
>>>>> Personally, I don't see a direct connection between my reading habits and
>>>>> your apparent racism and bigotry.
>>>>
>>>> Racism and bigotry?  Prove.
>>>
>>> You proved it with your own words.
>>
>> Did such a defense skill have a swift effect in courtroom?
>
> My lawyer training did help in analyzing in flaws in arguments.

Saying something to you is so vain.

Masayuki