in article 2tm6vbF211ck1U1@uni-berlin.de, m.yoshida at masa@yahoo.co.jp
wrote on 10/20/04 1:13 PM:

> "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

So you doubt that the Rape of Nanking occurred?

> 
>>>>>> 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.

Wow, I gather you really are the bigot that your statements make you out to
be.

 
>>>> 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.

I am sure that you thought that you were being cute in criticizing me for
being a lawyer, but that training is one of the things that helped me see
through your arguments to the bigotry on which it is based.

The more you write the more you prove that my opinion about you is correct.