Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Laura Mabee on November 18, 2004, 11:32:50 PM

Title: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 18, 2004, 11:32:50 PM
I wanted to get involved with the Anna Anderson Thread, only after reading 20+ pages, finding that the part two thread was being closed because we cannot talk about this without getting all our backs up.

So, with that said. Lets make this tread the "Group Therapy" Thread on our Passionate beleifs of AA and AN.

I'll start.

I am emotionally attached to the IF because at the time when I got involved with reading up on them, it was my escape from homelife. So, feeling like the history was my escape I usually get riled up when people go against my beliefs on AA  or AN because I always feel like we are de-facing the Romanovs. Sometimes I just want them to rest in peace, away from all the controversy that surrounds them. But at the same point, I love debate, so I will talk about topics that might even be touchy for me.

Blah.. Blah... Blah... I can't even make sense outta what I just wrote. Anyway, what I am trying to say is people are attached to topics for reasons. Lets start trying to understand one another.... I think it would do everyone some good  :)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Olga on November 19, 2004, 12:57:25 AM
I think I understand what you're trying to say, Laura. :)

Can we try and debate without getting nasty (from BOTH sides)?  ;D
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on November 19, 2004, 03:40:12 AM
Originally, I started the AA and FS thread to discuss Anna Anderson completely outside of the Anastasia issue.  It's purpose was to find out why people believed Frauline Unbekant/Anna Anderson to be FS, assuming that she wasn't Anastasia for the sake of argument.  You can see how that thread degernerated.  There are some who can't perceive the subtle difference between the two issues.  If you imply or even question that Anna Anderson was anyone but FS, you believe her to be Anastasia and should be ridiculed and, if possible, driven from the board.  I wish you luck where I failed.

Ilya
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Annie on November 19, 2004, 06:16:13 AM
I became emotionally attached to the IF at age 12 30 years ago. I used to believe in AA but don't anymore. I too use this as an escape from my real life. I also agree that it is time to let poor Anastasia rest in peace, and I feel the same way about AA. Their lives and tragedies are over. These are not movie characters. They were real people.

I'm not saying there should be no debate. There are new people getting into this every day who have not seen it all before and want to for themselves. What gets to me about this is that people JUMP ON and INSULT someone whose views they do not want to see. I do not feel I have been rude to anyone, the person Michelle accused me of being rude to in the other thread had been so rude, cutting and scary to me I actually left the forum temporarily 3 times. Finally I decided that no one here is any better than the other, and we all have a right to say what we want.

But it looks like there are some who have the attitude that if you post something against someone's opinion, you are attacking them, and that's not true! I'm only doing the same thing, posting an opinion. I have asked this many times: should all the disbelievers in AA simply have to shut up and stop posting the facts because the AA lovers don't want to see it and throw tantrums? Do you want us to agree with you and change our minds? Do you want us to just post smilie faces and say go ahead and believe what you want? What good is any discussion with only one side? I say go ahead and post what you want to say, but the other side will continue to disagree and post opposing information too. This is NO OFFENSE to anyone PERSONALLY! This is life, and if you can't deal with it go hide under a rock right now. I WAS bullied on the playground as a child, horribly, with bugs, poison ivy and even bricks. I've been bullied all my life. It's only showed me that no matter what I say, someone jumps all over me, so I might as well say what I really think and feel the best way I can.

As far as the band thing goes, I think the connection comes that people get irritated when something can be proven. While it's true musical taste is subjective and it's silly to call names over who likes what, people don't like to have facts used as evidence, like the numbers of how poorly the album sold compared to others, and how lowly attended concerts were. Still, that should not change their opinion of the music if they enjoy it. I think it makes them feel inferior inside for liking the bum album, so they have to lash out and call those who didn't buy it stupid and lacking for not seeing its hidden genius!

But with AA, the facts are not subjective, there is an answer to the mystery, scientific tests prove that she was not related to Alexandra's family and cannot be Anastasia. So I can't understand all the conspiracy theories at this point. There still can be speculation on Anastasia's fate, 2 bodies remain missing. There still can be speculation on who AA was if not FS, though I don't see how this matters as long as she wasn't AN, but if it interests you, go for it. And I will still say she was FS. And I don't deserve to be bashed for my beliefs any more than you do for yours.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Alice on November 19, 2004, 07:31:28 AM
Group therapy eh? OK.

*Stands up and clears throat* My name is Alice and I do not think that AA was AN.

I do, however, understand that others think differently. Try as I might to understand why some people think AA was AN, I simply cannot grasp how anyone can believe that they were the same person. It's a personal flaw of mine. I just can't do it, and often I start laughing at people's posts about AA being AN. Horrible, I know.

People that try to say the DNA was sabotaged are the people that really make me feel like throwing my keyboard.

People that say they look alike annoy me too. Not so much the people, but the fact that people think they look alike, annoys me. Because to me, it's obvious they don't. I know it's subjective. I know I shouldn't assume I'm right and they're wrong. But gargh.

If someone said "they look alike because . . . (the eyes, the mouth, WHATEVER)" then that would be preferable to "Oh I see a resemblance". If someone sees a resemblance, I want to know what the resemblance they see is, so that I can scoff at it.

Many people will read this and conclude that I, AL (Alice Louise) am a nasty person and should stay away from all AN and AA threads.

But I'm being honest. I don't apologise for it.

People get upset when someone makes a sarcastic remark on AA and AN threads. I, myself, have made several sarcastic remarks. I do draw the line at personal attacks, though. But, sarcastic remarks about AA aren't to be taken personally, and I wish some people would understand this.

It angers me that some woman is believed by many to be Anastasia. In this respect, I really wish the remains of Anastasia would be found to put this to rest.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Denise on November 19, 2004, 08:34:17 AM
I just want to say that I have belonged to the AA=AN camp once upon a time, and was as fervent a believer as many of the poster on this board.  I took Peter Kurth's book as gospel, and would talk about it to anyone who expressed interest.  It was an amazing thing, to my mind, how much of a resemblance there was between AA and AN!  People that didn't see what I did were obviously missing the boat.  Would all those people who knew AN say AA was the missing Grand Duchess if AA was a fraud?  

HOWEVER.....

After the bodies were tested and the DNA tests revealed that AA was not a member of the IF, I revisited the whole AA issue.  As an adult 15 yrs later (I was a teen when I read Kurth's book) I saw very little resemblance between AA and AN, and the photos began to seem deliberately posed to force a resemblance.  My passionate belief became that AA was not the AN, but I would be interested in knowing the truth of who she was.  

And the mystery remains for me of HOW she knew these things only AN knew.  Did she really know these things, or did the listeners so desperately want to believe Anna was Anastasia that they reinterpreted what she said into a memory of Anastasia?  

Either way, I can see how this excites passions on both sides.  People do internalize these strongly held beliefs.  As Annie said, to disagree becomes a slight on the believer's intelligence.  So people get defensive.  It is rather odd, though, to get so passionate about a young woman who went missing over 85 years ago, though.  

Denise
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2004, 08:59:22 AM
Hi Alice,

In some ways I feel like you do, except I feel more like being frustrated than being sarcastic. Some people deal with frustration by becoming sarcastic, others just get frustrated.
I got interested in the whole Anastasia thing in a kind of unconventional way. When I was little one of my favorite books to read were the "Anastasia Krupnik" series and in one of them it is mentioned that the main character was named by her parents after the Anastasia of Russia, and then it told a little bit of the story. So after I read that, I decided to read up on it some more and that's how I got hooked on the Romanovs and became curious about AA.  To be perfectly honest, I never really was convinced that AA was AN, even though I kind of wanted to believe it. I just never saw the resemblence between the two, no matter how hard I looked she just had such a totally different look. But then, of course the DNA tests came out, this was still before I began to study molecular biology myself, but still in my mind the case was put to rest because I like definitive evidence as opposed to stuff like pictures and testimonies.
Some years later, now armed with solid knowledge of DNA intricacies, I came across this case again on this forum. I started reading what people were saying about AA here and also what they were saying about DNA. I thought, wait a minute, what are they talking about? And so I jumped into the discussion, thinking, well if only the DNA part is clearly explained to these people, then they will understand that what is being said is not possible, so everyone will learn what the facts are and everyone will be happy to get their factul answer.

Well, as we all know - nothing could be farther from the truth. For some reason, many people here are very resistant to accept certain facts, I don't really understand why that is, but it seems that they would rather choose to expand on some obscure theories that make very little scientific sense, rather than accept scientific facts that make all the sense in the world. I don't know if it's because they just really want to believe something (a serious case of denial),  and will use any miniscule possibility that something happened somewhere and made some very unlikely thing to occur (I mean we're talking really unlikely) or they truly do not understand the science and see things in a distorted way.

No matter what, to me it just seems that some people are not really seeking the true evidence, but are only looking for evidence that will fit their own "truths". The reason this evokes strong feelings in me is because throughout history scientists have been put into the position of having to defend ideas that they knew themselves to be facts, and could prove it if only people would understand these ideas and be open to accept them. Think about it, how long did it take for the “earth is not flat and it revolves around the sun” theory to get accepted? How many people have been burned as 'heretics' over stuff like that? But when you understand why this is so, you know that there can be no other way and it can no longer be questioned. Or do some of you still question the fact that the earth is round?
The reason scientists accept things as proof and fight for it, is because traditionally any new scieintific theory is questioned to death. Sceintists have to repeat and repeat again their results and others have to be able to repeat them too many times over until it is accepted. If you think that people on this forum are skeptical, they are nothing compared to the scientific community! Sceintists are the most skeptical bunch in the world, and rightly so. But when a theory is finally substantiated, then you can be sure it is accurate. At least this is how it works these days.
But when people do not understand the basic concepts behind something like this, how do you prove it? You really can’t and that's when you get labeled a "heretic".

Same with DNA. Basically those of us who are trying to say that in this particular case, everything does come down to DNA evidence, we are being labeled “heretics”, for all intents and purposes, by those who refuse to accept DNA evidence. Yes, there may be evidence out there that may show that AA had some similar physical aspects as AN or may have been privy to some information that only AN may have known. But so far, all the evidence I have seen is on the subjective side and in each case can be open to interpretation. The only evidence that isn’t subjective and not open to individual interpretation is the DNA evidence. People don’t seem to understand that because they feel that we still don’t know enough about DNA to be able to say this. But we do! We know enough about DNA science at this point to be able to state certain things without any doubt, just like we can state with no doubt that the planet earth is round is not flat. It can be proven, but how many people will understand the proof? Many people obviously don't have the capability of abstract thinking, and they will only believe what they see or something that their mind can grasp. This is the case here. Unfortunately to understand DNA evidence, there is a need for some abstract understanding of scientific concepts, and apparently some people just refuse to see that this is the case, so they just outright reject it.

It is true, we are learning more and more about DNA every year, but that doesn’t mean that we are changing our minds about What we have already learned. We're most certainly not! We are just getting more and more precise with it, which doesn’t mean that what was thought previously is now wrong…

Anyway, I am sure that none of what I just wrote will really matter to those who choose to believe otherwise. They will still say that the “DNA proponents" (and this is how I see myself, as opposed to an “AA opponent” – I am not “anti-AA” I am just “pro-DNA” and the two just happen to be mutually exclusivein this case) are ignoring other evidence, being close minded, etc., etc., etc  But what they fail to understand is that if you don’t disregard the other evidence, this means that you are also rejecting the DNA evidence, and I am not prepared to do that because I know it to be accurate. So if you  accept one you must reject the other and this has absolutely nothing to do with being close minded. Obviously whoever thinks that it does, completely misundertands all of this.

So this is why I have to reject all the other evidence about AA - because I believe the DNA evidence to be accurate and once you believe that, all bets are off for everything else, there is just no other way.

Having said that, I also have never stated that I believe that AA was definitely FS if she wasn't AN. The two matters are mutually exclusive. What I believe is this: based on the DNA evidence, chances are about 25 to 1 that she could be FS, and chances are 1 to 25 that she may not be. In this case, this is where additional evidence becomes important. If there is compelling evidence that can make a good case against AA being FS, then by all means I will accept it. If not, I will go with the DNA evidence and say that it is likely she was FS. It’s like being the jury in criminal court, if something has been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be accepted, but if a reasonable doubt still exists then it probably won’t be… So I hope I made it clear in this long and rambling post why I get so frustrated by all this.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 19, 2004, 09:48:29 AM
I am not the least bit passionate about the Romanovs, least of all the whole AA/AN/FS  to do.
However, I am interested in what others may have to say- that is new or refreshing, perhaps a new slant or detail not mentioned or given much attention in the past.
History is my "hobby", pastime, such things are to be enjoyed. In that, the Romanovs interest me, but do not drive me to devotion or fanatic tirade.
What is most tiresome, downright annoying is the constant tantrums and REPETITION of the same tired litany over and over, as if we all had not only heard them all before ad infinitum but by the same posters no less !
I, for one am greatly disuaded from participating, even  from asking civil questions.  I will even go so far as to say is is so tedious as to make me consdier dropping the whole board all together, eliminating even subsciption from the AP site. It is just not worth the bother to tolerate such nonsense. Trying to just ignore such posters is impossible, they persisit in shouting their silly fits as well as dragging in those not even commenting.
I do not even mind a good cat fight, I can well hold my own, as long as it is adult and based on evidence [one way or the other] NOT on childish personality  fits.
Perhaps one space, justy for TNP [take no prisoners] is in order: gloves off and sabres drawn !!
Having said all that-
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2004, 09:55:13 AM
Hi Robert,

Perhaps you are not as indifferent to all this as you like to think, after all, you did bother to look at and even post on this thread  ;)  ;D

Helen
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: AGRBear on November 19, 2004, 10:27:38 AM
Oh dear,  I do need  to sit with a honey pot and think, think, think.....

AGRBear

Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Annie on November 19, 2004, 10:29:34 AM
Quote
Group therapy eh? OK.

*Stands up and clears throat* My name is Alice and I do not think that AA was AN.

I do, however, understand that others think differently. Try as I might to understand why some people think AA was AN, I simply cannot grasp how anyone can believe that they were the same person. It's a personal flaw of mine. I just can't do it, and often I start laughing at people's posts about AA being AN. Horrible, I know.

People that try to say the DNA was sabotaged are the people that really make me feel like throwing my keyboard.

People that say they look alike annoy me too. Not so much the people, but the fact that people think they look alike, annoys me. Because to me, it's obvious they don't. I know it's subjective. I know I shouldn't assume I'm right and they're wrong. But gargh.

If someone said "they look alike because . . . (the eyes, the mouth, WHATEVER)" then that would be preferable to "Oh I see a resemblance". If someone sees a resemblance, I want to know what the resemblance they see is, so that I can scoff at it.

Many people will read this and conclude that I, AL (Alice Louise) am a nasty person and should stay away from all AN and AA threads.

But I'm being honest. I don't apologise for it.

People get upset when someone makes a sarcastic remark on AA and AN threads. I, myself, have made several sarcastic remarks. I do draw the line at personal attacks, though. But, sarcastic remarks about AA aren't to be taken personally, and I wish some people would understand this.

It angers me that some woman is believed by many to be Anastasia. In this respect, I really wish the remains of Anastasia would be found to put this to rest.

Cheers.


I agree, Alice, and I've said many of those things many times. Interestingly enough, though you (and some others) say mainly the same things I do, and more than once, it is only me who is attacked for this! (Maybe since your name starts with an A too they are thinking it's me posting, yet again;) ) Some of the theories are very hard to take. When I do 'scoff' and make jokes, I have never aimed them at any one person, only the idea in general. A lot of us have done this, yet only "Annie" is attacked for it. I think one reason people hate me so much is because I have valid counterpoints to every single argument in favor of AA and they can't stand it. But that is nothing personal against them, and I hope they won't take it that way!
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 19, 2004, 10:40:45 AM
Dear Helen_Azar. Yes, I indeed post my thoughts. However, I will no comment any further. Like I said, I do like reading your theories & ideas that come up. Particularly the scientific eveidence when it is presented in terms that laymen such as I can understand. THAT, is indeed a great ability I appreciate very much. I see no reason to comment unless I have a valid question, not accusation or condemnation.
You have been quite instrumental in just that- new coherence to things that were quite cloudy to many of of.
As I have  stated my thoughts on the whole subject before, I see no reason to harp on them but I like reading the evidence put before us when done in an intelligent, even humourous manner. And hopefully new !
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: ISteinke on November 19, 2004, 10:43:22 AM
Hello, Here I am-
   Yes, like it or not, I am back, at least for "group therapy."
   Philosophically, I am not in the camp that "wants to believe" that AA was Anastasia. If she were to really be proved to be Franziska [or someone else for that matter] I would have no difficulty accepting it, whatsoever. I have never met her. She wasn't my personal friend. I have no emotional stake in this issue whatsoever.

    That being said, what has perturbed me about the anti-AA crowd is simply this. On a dusty bookshelf in Karlruhe, Germany there are 30 volumes of bound testimony which originated in the longest running court case in history. The German legal system is not made up of emotional purveyors of fairy tales. It is made up of trained, objective jurists. If this case were all pure, moronic stupidity [which is really what, in my opinion, these DNA-obcessed posters are saying] don't you think that the German legal system would have simply disposed itself of the case? One of the judges, after the last trial, explained to an AA supporter [I believe it was Frederick of Saxe-Altenburg] that they could just as easily have ruled in her favour. They ruled as they did, in part, because they realized that, regardless of their ruling the royal families of Europe were not just going to recant and accept her. i.e. they wanted to put it to rest, for her sake.
     Then there's the Berlin police, way back in the 1920s. The Berlin police were very well aware of the Schanskowska dissapearance, and they were very well aware of the "Fraulein Unbekaant" case. Yet, they nevertheless came to the verdict that in all likelihood, based on preliminary inquiries, FU and AN were one and the same.
     Were all of these trained legal officers and jurists simply stupid?
      Grand Duke Andrei was a distinguished jurist, trained at the military law academy in Petrograd, and he, upon examination of evidence, accepted her.
      In summary, what really has me torqued  is the idea that all of these trained jurists were stupid and uninformed, and that those 8000 pages of legal testimony are nothing but a ridiculous fairy-tale.
      I would believe all of your stuff about the DNA if it weren't for the fact that there is a mind-boggling ammount of legal evidence stacked against your position. You folks have made me angry, because of your refusal to deal with the objective evidence in her favor.
      These forums were not meant to be a continually repeated mantra of people meditating the words, DNA, DNA, DNA, DNA.
       I don't know why the DNA evidence came out the way it did. However, there absolutely has to be some explanation for it.
       Here's my opinion. If you ignore or discount every other part of this post, pay attention to what I am about to say. Instead of fruitlessly arguing over DNA and conspiracies, I believe that this forum should be a springboard for an ambitious, scholarly research project, something which would actually make the AA-AN-FS case something worth talking about [from an intellectual standpoint]. I like Peter Kurth, and I admire him, and I agree with him. HOWEVER, his work is often refuted, to large degree, I believe, because it an abstraction of the facts, rather than a primary source. In other words, it is his interpretation of the issue.
        That was the opinion. Now the proposal. In order that we might be able to really, truly, from a scholarly standpoint, discuss the issue, through primary sources, I would propose to all of you that a scholar or team of scholars go over to Germany and undertake to translate the entire corpus of the Anastasia case into English. Then, it should offered for sale as a scholarly SET to researchers.
       

      That is what all of us should be doing. We should each have a set of The Anastasia Trial sitting on our desks, from which to refer. Until we are all versed in that corpus of literature I don't think that anyone, including myself, has any right to speak.
     


Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Denise on November 19, 2004, 10:44:46 AM
Quote
I do like reading your theories & ideas that come up. Particularly the scientific eveidence when it is presented in terms that laymen such as I can understand. THAT, is indeed a great ability I appreciate very much. I see no reason to comment unless I have a valid question, not accusation or condemnation.
 You have been quite instrumental in just that- new coherence to things that were quite cloudy to many of of.


Well said, Robert!!  I agree 100%.  Helen explains things extremely well!!  

Denise
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Michelle on November 19, 2004, 12:18:55 PM
Well, ISteinke, I for one am glad to have you back! ;)

As for my passion, I too have a great emotional attachment to the IF.  So much so that I feel like I know them, and that OTMA could be my sisters.  They were (for me) the center of that beautiful and haunting world of Imperial Russia.  And that is forever lost.  I feel the need to hold on to the fact that at least one of them survived.  And with AA I see a very plausible claimant to being Anastasia--after all, her name does mean, "She will rise again."  And as ISteinke just recently pointed out, there are 8,000 pages of legal testimony for her case!  When people choose to ignore the fact that the court would've ruled in her favor based on compelling evidence if not for the stubborn European royalty (again as ISteinke pointed out), I get rather angry.  I can't understand how anti-AA people become so antagonistic to the notion that she could've been Anastasia BASED ON NUMEROUS EVIDENCE.  I mean, would you rather her have just died in Ekaterinburg?  I just can't comprehend how so many people have warmed up to that thought.  I consider that quite uncaring and mean.  

I know people are going to start ridiculing me for what I've stated.  The anti-AA crowd whines that they're the ones being ridiculed whenever pro-AA people challenge their views.  But I don't recall a time when any AA supporter has been the initial ridiculer/insulter/attacker.
Only anti's.  Sure the supporters are going to be nasty to someone who is nasty to them first!  They don't honestly believe that we supporters are just going to be taking their crap.  If they do, maybe they should be generous this Christmas and donate some of their overfed egos to the poor.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Forum Admin on November 19, 2004, 12:41:42 PM
Michelle.
I have tried and tried and tried to be polite, fair, and to keep things civil. I have had enough.
YOU Michelle, are frankly, the source of much of the rancor, bad feelings and discord here. I can not begin to tell you how many private complaints I have gotten about you, and not from the people you might think.

I will NOT warn you again, unless you stop the nasty and personal attacks, you will be asked to leave the Forum. Period.

This is in no way based on your positions, but is only based on your conduct.

I've had it. You are on notice. Behave or be gone.

Forum Admin.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2004, 01:47:41 PM
Quote
Dear Helen_Azar. Yes, I indeed post my thoughts. However, I will no comment any further. Like I said, I do like reading your theories & ideas that come up. Particularly the scientific eveidence when it is presented in terms that laymen such as I can understand. THAT, is indeed a great ability I appreciate very much. I see no reason to comment unless I have a valid question, not accusation or condemnation.
 You have been quite instrumental in just that- new coherence to things that were quite cloudy to many of of.
As I have  stated my thoughts on the whole subject before, I see no reason to harp on them but I like reading the evidence put before us when done in an intelligent, even humourous manner. And hopefully new !
Cheers,
Robert


Robert, I was just kidding with you  about not being indifferent. I hope I have been of some help to explain this, as this is my goal here ;D

Helen
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Janet_W. on November 19, 2004, 01:57:25 PM
I very much like the idea of discussing our personal beliefs about the question of Anastasia--and establishing the difference between our feelings vs. evidence and scientific proof.

That being said, I will add that human behavior never fails to amaze me. And I suppose that's why many of us are posting at this website, because we are interested in the way certain people interacted with each other one hundred years ago and more, and how their interactions affected not only history, but current times as well.

But while we're posting at this site re: the behaviors and actions of people in history, perhaps we need to examine our own behaviors as well.

I've noticed quite a few postings that go from defensive to scatalogical in a nanosecond.

I've also noted some rather disingenous postings which begin politely, then end on vicious and accusatory notes.

If people want to "flame" each other, perhaps they need to do the computer equivalent of "taking it outside," i.e., instant message each other. In other words, let's keep the forum civil, and those who are carrying a grudge should carry it "outside" and not subject the rest of us. It's one thing to politely agree to disagree; it's quite another to disembowel someone who isn't in lockstep with you.

Also, I think we're all of an age to select appropriate language for our posts. What may be just fine during an in-person situation, and/or with your friends, can look crude and aggressive in print.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2004, 01:59:37 PM
Quote
Hello, Here I am-
    Yes, like it or not, I am back, at least for "group therapy."
    
 


ISteinke, I am glad you are back too. Maybe we can all try to discuss this in a less inflammatory and more friendly and  intellectual manner now. I also think the whole AA-FS-AN story is fascinating, even if I don't believe she was AN, she is an interesting person in her own right. I hope someone does go to Germany and researches this some more just to finally figure out who she was exactly, whether FS or someone else.  BTW, back when this case came to courts in Germany, they didn't have DNA evidence, but if they did, the case would have been dismissed as soon as they got the results...
And I also really meant it about that molecular biology book, if you want it, it's yours  :)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Evanescence on November 19, 2004, 03:36:51 PM
I'm not emotionally attached. But everyone seems to only look at the DNA evidence. There are much more evidence supporting the AA and AN case.

Also why didn't Ella's preserved finger match the DNA of Alexandra Feodorovna (I love typing her name ;D)??

Also instead of just looking at the DNA evidence you need to look at everything at both sides to make a clear judgement.

Another thing, I just watched the MTV Roma Music Awards... Usher does NOT deserve to be best male!! >:(
Hey, I'm only 15 gimme a break.

Anyways, back to the topic.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2004, 03:47:09 PM
Quote


Also why didn't Ella's preserved finger match the DNA of Alexandra Feodorovna (I love typing her name ;D)??



Hi Evanescence,

If you would really like to understand more about the Ella's finger issue, and a little more about DNA evidence in general, I and another colleague just wrote an article about this, and it also addresses the "finger question" . The article is supposed to be published in January, but if you would like an answer sooner, PM me...

Helen  :)


Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Lanie on November 19, 2004, 03:49:29 PM
Quote
Also why didn't Ella's preserved finger match the DNA of Alexandra Feodorovna (I love typing her name ;D)??


Because it probably isn't Ella's finger but Varvara's.  The whole deal that it was Ella's finger seems just to be a typical sensational rumor.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Forum Admin on November 19, 2004, 03:53:52 PM
The finger used might not even be from either one of them. The chain of custody and actual provenance are a bit murky. The two bodies in Jerusalem should both be sampled and tested to be sure.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Merrique on November 19, 2004, 04:33:52 PM
I agree with something  Janet_W said....human behavior never fails to amaze me.

I just don't understand why some people here feel the need to resort to sarcastic remarks and personal attacks on one another to prove that their point is the right one.
We can all see there are plenty of believers that AA was AN,or AA was FS,or AA wasn't AN,or AA wasn't FS.Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs on this subject.And for some nothing will change their minds on these beliefs,not even DNA evidence,which proves the matter closed that AA wasn't AN to me.

I just can't understand why everyone can't discuss these issues in a civil manner.Why some people on here feel that everyone is out to get them because they disagree with their comments.Everyone on here,myself included,should be more mature than this.

I think we all should remember why we come to this site and this forum in the first place.To discuss the IF,Russian history etc. etc.To learn from one another and to share thoughts and ideas.To discuss these subjects with one another while showing each other respect and civility.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Annie on November 19, 2004, 04:38:05 PM
Quote
Also instead of just looking at the DNA evidence you need to look at everything at both sides to make a clear judgement.



I don't just look at DNA, it's everything. I have more than enough evidence to make 'clear judgement' (my list of reasons is posted in the why or why not thread)

and I'm not an Usher fan either.
;)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Forum Admin on November 19, 2004, 05:23:04 PM
Actually,
In order to make a genuinely "clear judgment", one must not just "look" at the evidence, one must assess the credibility and evidentiary "weight" as well. Some bits of evidence are "worth more" so to speak than others.

To my mind, the DNA evidence is far more compelling than anything else. It does not rely on "opinion" or "belief" nor someone's "subjective analysis"...It is "science" , obviously a dirty or scary word to some. But it is what it is, regardless of your beliefs. The sun still rises every morning, gravity holds you down on the floor, and the moon revolves around the earth, and both revolve around the sun...AA had mtDNA that simply can not have come from anyone related maternally in the Hesse family. period. end of story.

The "rest" of the evidence, in a court of law, for example, is far LESS probative of evidentiary value. It just isn't "worth" as much, no matter how much one emotionally might want it to be...but LOGICALLY speaking, OBJECTIVE evidence is simply more valuable than "SUBJECTIVE" and emotional evidence...
I was so sad to see Michelle write that we are 'heartless' because we "don't want Anastasia to have survived"...Nothing can be further from the truth...None of us wanted any of the IF to be killed. But, regardless of our emotions, the facts are what they are...Like Joe Friday used to say, when I was a kid...."Just the facts, M'am, just the facts."
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Louise on November 19, 2004, 05:26:13 PM
I was interested at one time of learning the basic DNA element to understand the AA/AN/FS controversery. However some of the threads and the nastiness made me walk away from educating myself on the subject

I know enough about DNA to know that it is almost 99.9 % foolproof.

That said, I had also wondered if AA was AN and it was a small dream to wonder and think..."If she was AN, then oh wow, were people mistakend and the poor woman denied her heritage. However DNA proved she was not. I enjoy history, and I enjoy all types of history. The IF is among the many arts of this subject that I truly enjoy and want to learn more of. Obsessed, maybe on the amount of books I read and have, but I keep it all in perspective.

I don't believe that the gov't of Russian, USA and Britain, the Queen of England and the Prince, the Romanov family all conspired and falsified the DNA tests to deny AA her rightful place in history. That is goofy and silly to  think so.

So therefore, until someone sits down QUIETLY and explains to me both sides of the issue and I can wiegh the pros and cons for myself, without smart butt, snide, snotty, mean comments, I will content myself with FOTR and Massies Romanovs and do the best I can to muddle through.

My belief, and it is my belief, is that AA was not AN and I don't know enough to say she is FS.

FA, thank you for locking that thread.

Louise
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Forum Admin on November 19, 2004, 05:38:20 PM
Louise, and others interested.
VERY simply put, DNA is a sequence of "amino acids", chemicals, whose names start with A, C, T, G. They line up in very long chains to form DNA. A sample stretch might look like this: AATCAGGACATCGA.
Now, everyone shares some parts of the chain that are exactly the same, that part makes us Human instead of dogs or goldfish.
BUT
certain segments, which we know, will be different from family to family (with mtDNA especially) and even from individual to individual.

As for Anna Anderson, her mtDNA segment was analyized, and the AATTAGGCATCC etc segments identified.
That string of letters, was compared to the mtDNA of Prince Philip, whose mtDNA sequence of letters we know for a FACT matches Alix of Hesse's sequence.

There were SIX places where the letters in the AA sequence that changes in the DNA strand did NOT match the Hesse family. mtDNA mutates, or changes the letters ONCE in the sequence only one time every 20 GENERATIONS. [this is conservative giving the AA folks some doubt, most scientists say only once in FORTY generations]. This means that the CLOSEST possible common maternal ancestor between AA and Prince Philip would be at least 120 GENERATIONS ago. Even once in 10 generations would mean 60 generations ago...So, they just aren't related at all. period.

Helen A, did I get an A on my bio essay?? LOL.
FA
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Sunny on November 19, 2004, 06:02:31 PM
Dear FA, "VERY simply put"...thank you.

Sunny
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 19, 2004, 07:36:33 PM
 :-[
I wanted to start this thread so we could understand eachother. Unfortunatly it seems like some people are still attacking eachother.
I didn't want to make this thread another debate thread of AA vs. AN vs. FS.
I'm going to apologize to FA for casuing him more grief on this issue.

Thank you to all that have kept to the idea of this thread and not digressing.

Overall, everyone is a great person. And I truly think that

 :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Forum Admin on November 19, 2004, 08:25:05 PM
OH
One more point. The mtDNA of AA matched Carl Maucher, the relative of FS, exactly, letter for letter over the entire strand.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Denise on November 19, 2004, 08:32:13 PM
FA, thanks for such a basic, easy to understand explanation of the mtDNA findings.  I have never not believed them, but it is great to understand WHY the findings are conclusive, and how mtDNA works.

Denise
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2004, 09:16:22 PM
Quote
Helen A, did I get an A on my bio essay?? LOL.
FA


Good job explaning the basic concept of DNA, it really isn't that easy to explain without confusing people even more , which is what I found out lately!  :-[ Thanks.

H
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: rskkiya on November 19, 2004, 09:59:17 PM
(Smiles and stands up)LOL

Hello, My name is Rskkiya and I have never believed in Anna Anderson being Anastasia Nicholevna...
(mutters of "hello rskkiya"...hm hmm) ;D

Seriously...
   I do respect those individuals, who in the absence of DNA evidence, made what they could of "ear structure", face shape and personal family knowledge to buttress their theory that Anna was Anastasia -- and regarding the known facts at that time they made a very viable and admirable arguement.
   With the DNA evidence - these other attempts no longer seem to work - but that should not suggest that I think that AA= AN supporters are stupid, pigheaded or deluded at all...I simply don't quite follow the logic of their continued "faith."  
    To me this all comes down to a "neo religiousity" a faith in certain things that still seem to begger basic scientific explanation...Why do some people still believe in UFO's being responsible for "Corn Circles?" Why do some people still doubt that astronauts visited the moon?
     Does this make my perspective any clearer?

rskkiya

(welcome back IST)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 19, 2004, 10:15:46 PM
Did I understand correctly- 30 volumes of court documents- in GERMAN ? I shan't hold my breath waiting for THAT to be translated.
It does seem a bit odd, though that some sort of "condensed' version has not come about somewhere along the line.
R.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2004, 10:21:01 PM
Quote
It does seem a bit odd, though that some sort of "condensed' version has not come about somewhere along the line.
 R.


"Anna Anderson German Court Case" Cliffnotes!  ;D
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2004, 10:24:29 PM
Quote
(Smiles and stands up)Seriously...
    I do respect those individuals, who in the absence of DNA evidence, made what they could of "ear structure", face shape and personal family knowledge to buttress their theory that Anna was Anastasia -- and regarding the known facts at that time they made a very viable and admirable arguement.
    With the DNA evidence - these other attempts no longer seem to work - but that should not suggest that I think that AA= AN supporters are stupid, pigheaded or deluded at all...I simply don't quite follow the logic of their continued "faith."  
    


rskkiya,

I understand exactly what you mean here, and a lot of what you said goes for me too. I guess I just don't understand the logic of it either.  ???
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Denise on November 19, 2004, 10:32:59 PM
Quote

I understand exactly what you mean here, and a lot of what you said goes for me too. I guess I just don't understand the logic of it either.  ???


Add me to the "huh?" list too.  I too can respect their strong belief, as I once shared it, but I don't quite grasp it.  

Denise
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Merrique on November 19, 2004, 10:39:40 PM
Quote

rskkiya,

I understand exactly what you mean here, and a lot of what you said goes for me too. I guess I just don't understand the logic of it either.  ???


I think a lot of what Rskkiya goes for a lot of us,me included.I don't think any of us who have a understanding of the DNA evidence and the belief that it is correct understand this kind of logic Helen.It really just boggles my mind why some still believe eventhough the DNA argues to the contrary. :-/
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Annie on November 19, 2004, 10:53:14 PM
I think what it is is that (no offense to anyone in particular) they believe the tests were tampered with or rigged or that the sample from Anna was switched, which makes no sense either, because it was a close match with Maucher, and what would be the chances of this random person from the switch in Virginia matching some Polish guy?

The other thing I can't reconcile is the claims that her face completely changed after being hit by rifle butts. It would seem that if this was the case, it would look like a damaged version of Anastasia's face, not a completely different person's face with different bone structure ??? I just can't buy that. It's like when I was in fifth grade, and I had a white kitten with a yellow striped tail. I got him from the Humane Society and I'd only had him 2 weeks when my older brother accidently backed over him while I was at school :( Knowing I'd be heartbroken, my mother went back to the shelter to get one of his siblings as a replacement, but they'd already been adopted. So she got another kitten that had much more yellow on him than mine, and they tried to tell me that they took him to the vet and the medicine changed his fur color. I didn't buy that either :'(
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Alice on November 19, 2004, 10:55:44 PM
Quote
With the DNA evidence - these other attempts no longer seem to work - but that should not suggest that I think that AA= AN supporters are stupid, pigheaded or deluded at all...I simply don't quite follow the logic of their continued "faith."  


Thankyou, Thankyou, THANKYOU!

This is exactly my thoughts.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 19, 2004, 10:57:39 PM
Oh, Annie. I could have gone the rest of the weekend without hearing that story.
[after I just admitted being a softie for pets on another thread].
Robert
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Annie on November 19, 2004, 11:06:12 PM
Sorry Robert :'( I am a softie for pets too. And I have another sweet loving yellow and white kitty purring on top of my monitor right now:)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 19, 2004, 11:09:07 PM
ok, I can smile again !
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Olga on November 20, 2004, 12:41:45 AM
Bobby, I can tell you stories about Helga if you want!  ;D
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Louise on November 20, 2004, 07:07:52 AM
Thank you FA for the lesson in DNA!

Louise
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Elisabeth on November 20, 2004, 08:11:32 AM
I think part of the appeal of Anna Anderson as the "real" Anastasia is that it makes a kind of narrative sense that goes beyond the factual and enters the realm of the purely mythic. It exerts a tremendous pull on the imagination, especially for the more artistically inclined among us. I mean, think about it, if you were to write a novel, you could not come up with better plot and thematics than those found in the story of Anna Anderson. It incorporates elements of fairy tales like "The Princess and the Pea" (as Peter Kurth once pointed out) and "Cinderella" - it even harkens back to the Greek myth of Persephone. It touches upon some of our deepest primal fears - loss of country, loss of family, loss of identity, loss of self. The name "Anastasia" itself is symbolic of someone who comes back from the dead, since it literally means "resurrection." The story of Anna Anderson is truly a story worthy of Shakespeare, if only he were still around to write it!

And this is why I think the appeal of Anna Anderson will never die, no matter how many tests are done, no matter how many advances science makes. She's achieved the immortality of  Legend, even if you don't (as I don't) believe she was actually Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaevna.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Denise on November 20, 2004, 08:13:50 AM
Quote
It touches upon some of our deepest primal fears - loss of country, loss of family, loss of identity, loss of self. The name "Anastasia" itself is symbolic of someone who comes back from the dead, since it literally means "resurrection." The story of Anna Anderson is truly a story worthy of Shakespeare, if only he were still around to write it!

And this is why I think the appeal of Anna Anderson will never die, no matter how many tests are done, no matter how many advances science makes. She's achieved the immortality of  Legend, even if you don't (as I don't) believe she was actually Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaevna.


Oh, Elisabeth, beautifully put!!  I am speechless to add a thing!  :)

D
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Elisabeth on November 20, 2004, 08:25:23 AM
Thank you for your kind words, Denise!  :) I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and it's one of the reasons why I wish people would not get so angry with each other over this topic... even if we can't agree, even if art and science are irreconcilable in cases like this one, still - isn't there an inherent power and beauty in both worldviews?
Title: gRe: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 20, 2004, 09:08:06 AM
Elisabeth, what you say is true, and I have always felt that even though she was not Anastasia, Anna Anderson was a very interesting person in her own right. In fact, I personally think she became a lot more interesting than the real AN, since the latter did not, unfortunately, get much of a chance to fully form her personality and to live up to her potential, at least as far as we know.

This woman, AA, came seemingly out of nowhere and took the world by storm, so to speak. To this day, already a few decades after her death, she still doesn't fail to stir up very strong feelings in people who had never even met her. She is indeed a legend and she gave the real Anastasia a legendary status as well, something that AN would not have achieved otherwise! If not for AA, Anastasia would just have remained one of the four sisters, whereas she now stands very much apart from the rest - has had many books and films made about her, etc. So, not in a biological way, but in a metaphorical way (for the lack of a better term), Anna Anderson is Anastasia.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 20, 2004, 09:16:03 AM
Quote
ok, I can smile again !


Robert,

What a sentimentalist, who would have thought! That's so sweet.  :D

If you'd like, I too can tell you stories about my 15-year- old cat Mushka and my other cat Skimmer who was fished out of a swimming pool as a 5-week-old kitten two years ago! Talk about a miraculous survival story ;)
Title: Re: gRe: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Denise on November 20, 2004, 09:16:14 AM
Quote
So, not in a biological way, but in a metaphorical way (for the lack of a better term), Anna Anderson is Anastasia.


Perhaps this why some people can't bear to hear anything against AA being AN.  After all, our knowledge of AN is largely colored by AA's interpretation.  I agree entirely that if AA is NOT AN (as indicated by DNA)  she is still a unique individual.  I personally would love to know more about her even if she is not AN or FS.  Unfortunately, that looks impossible.  

The story of Anna Anderson and her "phoenix from the ashes" life has become a modern myth.   Anastasia was such a young girl at the time of her murder that her life had hardly begun.  As such, like Helen states, she was just one of four sisters.  Through AA's claims we were able to imagine life with the IF and see them as real people.  Many people were led to study the IF through AA, as I was myself.  Even though I no longer consider her to be AN, I still cannot regret the time I spent learning about her, as it has led me to a study of a lost era I find fascinating.

Denise
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 20, 2004, 09:42:38 AM
Same here, Denise. Even the cursury study of the case is part of the whole Romanov picture, pro & con.. Particularly if interested in the end chapters. Same with Rasputin, the war, revolution, and the balls, jewels, family fighting. The pretty & the not-so-pretty.
One must at least see a rudimentary outline in order to get a hold on the whole story.
IMO that is.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Adele on November 20, 2004, 02:26:48 PM
Quote
Actually,
In order to make a genuinely "clear judgment", one must not just "look" at the evidence, one must assess the credibility and evidentiary "weight" as well. Some bits of evidence are "worth more" so to speak than others.

To my mind, the DNA evidence is far more compelling than anything else. It does not rely on "opinion" or "belief" nor someone's "subjective analysis"...It is "science" , obviously a dirty or scary word to some. But it is what it is, regardless of your beliefs. The sun still rises every morning, gravity holds you down on the floor, and the moon revolves around the earth, and both revolve around the sun...AA had mtDNA that simply can not have come from anyone related maternally in the Hesse family. period. end of story.

The "rest" of the evidence, in a court of law, for example, is far LESS probative of evidentiary value. It just isn't "worth" as much, no matter how much one emotionally might want it to be...but LOGICALLY speaking, OBJECTIVE evidence is simply more valuable than "SUBJECTIVE" and emotional evidence...
I was so sad to see Michelle write that we are 'heartless' because we "don't want Anastasia to have survived"...Nothing can be further from the truth...None of us wanted any of the IF to be killed. But, regardless of our emotions, the facts are what they are...Like Joe Friday used to say, when I was a kid...."Just the facts, M'am, just the facts."



Aren't you leaving out one fact?  That it's a human being who tested the DNA, and human beings are subject to (intentional?) error.    For example, this past week, on CNN,  it was found that a private lab (California?)  was found to be giving false evidence; or rather they 'adjusted' the 'facts' of the DNA testing over a period of a couple of years.  Consequently, some  people were found guilty based on 'scientific' evidence, but it was false evidence (which is my point, here).

As long as a human being is involved in any way in any scientific testing, there is a possibility for error.

What I find so interesting in this Forum, however, is how attached people are to their opinions, to a point of rudeness.  It's as though their opinions are some kind of permanent velcro attached to their egos.

Why can't someone just innocently voice an opinion about Anastasia without being devoured?  Part of the question itself (about Anastasia) has to do with wonderment and fascination. What's wrong with that?   After all,  there is such a thing as a neutral statement.  And there is also something else called 'restraint', which many times can and should be applied here.  

Argument does not necessarily have to be a (verbal or otherwise) blood sport.  

Adele




Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Forum Admin on November 20, 2004, 02:31:01 PM
Quote


Aren't you leaving out one fact?  That it's a human being who tested the DNA, and human beings are subject to (intentional?) error.    For example, this past week, on CNN,  it was found that a private lab (California?)  was found to be giving false evidence; or rather they 'adjusted' the 'facts' of the DNA testing over a period of a couple of years.  Consequently, some  people were found guilty based on 'scientific' evidence, but it was false evidence (which is my point, here).

As long as a human being is involved in any way in any scientific testing, there is a possibility for error.

The only logical problem with this statement Adele, is this: FOUR different labs, each with blind samples and different sets of people doing the work got the EXACT same results as each other. Thus eliminating the possiblility of "human error" from one lab's results.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 20, 2004, 02:51:00 PM
Quote


Aren't you leaving out one fact?  That it's a human being who tested the DNA, and human beings are subject to (intentional?) error.    For example, this past week, on CNN,  it was found that a private lab (California?)  was found to be giving false evidence; or rather they 'adjusted' the 'facts' of the DNA testing over a period of a couple of years.  Consequently, some  people were found guilty based on 'scientific' evidence, but it was false evidence (which is my point, here).

As long as a human being is involved in any way in any scientific testing, there is a possibility for error.

What I find so interesting in this Forum, however, is how attached people are to their opinions, to a point of rudeness.  It's as though their opinions are some kind of permanent velcro attached to their egos.

Why can't someone just innocently voice an opinion about Anastasia without being devoured?  Part of the question itself (about Anastasia) has to do with wonderment and fascination. What's wrong with that?   After all,  there is such a thing as a neutral statement.  And there is also something else called 'restraint', which many times can and should be applied here.  

Argument does not necessarily have to be a (verbal or otherwise) blood sport.  

Adele



Hi Adele,

You do make a very good point about human error and of course that can happen. But, because generally DNA is used for very important evidence, the standard protocol is to make sure human error can be detected and the experimental methods are specifically designed to account for the possibility of error. This is what experimental controls are used for, and in addition, as FA also mentioned, this is why several different independent labs often perform the same tests. If all of them get identical results, as was the case in the AA case, then human error is definitely not an issue. This is a form of data quality control and it works very well. Of course there are labs who don't do this, but generally their data is not accepted, at least by serious scientists. I am not sure which case you are talking about on CNN, since I don't know anything about it,  but I can tell you for sure that human error (accidental or intentional) is not possible in the AA case.

I'm sorry if I sound like I am too attached to my opinion, but so far no other argument or evidence has convinced me otherwise, so I don't really see any reason to detach myself from this particular opinion  :D. If someone can show me reasonable proof why these DNA results are not to be trusted, and I mean in a technical sense, not in the "Queen of England must have rigged them because she didn't want anyone to know" sense, then I will very happily reconsider and defer to their opinions!

I hope I don't sound like I am trying to 'devour' you for your opinion, this is not my intention at all, as I am only trying to share what I know so that others can make informed decisions about this case.

And yes, I agree, and I already said this earlier, that this is an interesting case to talk about and that we should all be able to voice an opinion about it, as long as our opinions can be backed up by something reasonable, and don't get completely out of control as it happens sometimes when certain conspiracy theories emerge!   ;)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Val289 on November 20, 2004, 02:54:23 PM
Quote


What I find so interesting in this Forum, however, is how attached people are to their opinions, to a point of rudeness.  It's as though their opinions are some kind of permanent velcro attached to their egos.

Why can't someone just innocently voice an opinion about Anastasia without being devoured?  Part of the question itself (about Anastasia) has to do with wonderment and fascination. What's wrong with that?   After all,  there is such a thing as a neutral statement.  And there is also something else called 'restraint', which many times can and should be applied here.  

Argument does not necessarily have to be a (verbal or otherwise) blood sport.  

Adele







So very well stated Adele - thank you! :)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 20, 2004, 02:58:48 PM
Quote


So very well stated Adele - thank you! :)


Hi Val289,

Please see my previous post for an explanation about my own attachment to a particular opinion. I think I probably speak for many others too. Absolutely nothing to do with closed-mindness, only with rational thinking.  :)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Val289 on November 20, 2004, 03:04:51 PM
Hi Helen,

Thanks for your reply.  I can completely understand why you have the opinions that you do, and you certainly don't impress me as being close minded.  Whenever you debate you do so in a respectful and courteous manner (withOUT sarcasm) - thank you!   I wish I could say the same for everyone here........... :-/

Val  ;)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 20, 2004, 03:22:20 PM
Val,

I think that some people just tend to get sarcastic when they get frustrated with others, it's almost like an automatic response. I don't think it's anything personal, it's just how some people react. Hopefully this is what this "group therapy" thread will improve...  :)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Merrique on November 20, 2004, 04:16:03 PM
Quote

Hi Val289,

Please see my previous post for an explanation about my own attachment to a particular opinion. I think I probably speak for many others too. Absolutely nothing to do with closed-mindness, only with rational thinking.  :)

I think you speak for a lot of us Helen. :)
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Annie on November 22, 2004, 01:39:08 PM
Thumbs up Helen! :)


I was thinking about something else on this and don't know where to post it. A lot of the phenomenon of the AA story has come from books, mainly Kurth's and Lovell's. However, some of the strongest and best info against her I have seen has been posted by people who are from Europe, like Stefan. I have a theory on that. As was discussed in another thread, books can sometimes be more one sided or tilted toward the point of view of the author. This is not an insult to anyone, it happens with all kinds of books. But I was thinking that if someone was going to try to prove one thing, naturally they would only linclude things that backed up their cause, and sometimes leave out things that might hurt it, right? It could happen on any subject. I think that there must be a great deal on AA we don't know, or most Americans don't know, because it was in books like the French ones Stefan has that were never translated into English. Because no one ever bothered to bring these views to light, they have been largely hidden while some of the other points, those that back her case up more, have been more prominently brought to light. I wonder what all there is we don't know and how it would change anyone's opinion? Anyway, just a thought I had on the subject.
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Annie on November 22, 2004, 02:26:02 PM
He's brought us some great stuff, like the letter to Gertrude S. saying how she knew AA was her sister, and the REAL reaction of GD Olga to AA. I bet there is a literal wealth of writings on the subject of AA, and the IF, in French that stayed in the emigre' community. I hope it will get translated too! Stefan if you are around, please bring us more info from France!
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 23, 2004, 09:15:41 PM
Is Stefan one of the members here?
Title: Re: Passionate Beliefs
Post by: Denise on November 24, 2004, 06:11:20 AM
I would love to read Stefan's post's.  I tried a search and got very little.  Can you provide links to some of the info he has posted?

And I agree, it would be great to have this info translated....

Denise