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.

>>>> 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?

>> 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.