On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:25:28 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
wrote:

>In fj.life.in-japan C.Brady <ch.brady@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:55:31 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>
>>>>>You do not appear to understand that it was the (eg) Poles, Czechs,
>>>>>Jews, gypsies, Russians (etc) who were victims.
>>>
>>>> Au contraire - I'm well aware of the atrocities and hence suffering
>>>> brought on by Nazism. 
>>>          
>>>
>>>Really? Odd that this is the first time you've mentioned it. However,
>>>you misspelled "Germans".
>
>> Sine Nazism is generally associated with Germany, e.g. WWII; I assumed

[...]

>>>"If one were to except the above definition, then one may reasonable
>>>deduce that there were per se German victims of the war."
>
>> That is my quote minus the dictionary definition.
>> Allow me to refresh your memory:
>> Merriam-Webster
>> Entry Word: victim
>> Function: noun
>> Text: 1 a living being sacrificed (as in a religious rite) <offered up
>> human victims to appease their bloodthirsty gods> 
>> Synonyms offering, sacrifice
>> 2 one subjected to oppression, loss, or suffering <victims of social
>> injustice> 
>
>> I stand by my initial assertion; 
>
>Right; that the Germans were the victims in WWII.
>
>Indeed, that was a statement I refuted, you took exception to, and
>produced the above "dictionary" definition. Now, you are trying to
>modify both my statement, and yours, finding yourself inadequate to the
>task of supporting your statement.

There is no point in continuing this discourse until a) you attempt to
define the term _victim_ (Something that I've already done via
Webster's dictionary), and b) substantiate your assertion (based on
creditable, widely excepted definitions).

As you well know, strictly subjective suppositions are not worthy of
any serious consideration. So far you presented nothing but
suppositions, which you have NOT substantiated.   

Surly, you don't presume, that your entire proposition, based on
nothing but conjecture and speculation is worthy of any further
consideration on my part.

Simply put, I will no longer respond to your rambling until you
develop a coherent argument.

- C.B.



>
>Mike