Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JM

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
1
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 04, 2005, 07:38:03 AM »
Quote
I'll explain again. I said that in my opinion Christianity is a bad thing.

Well, that sounds like an informed and rational opinion!
Quote
Then I said that freedom of religion is excellent, because when there was no such thing (thanks to Christianity) it was a very sad time. And now that it isn't mandatory, we can all rejoice. Is that SO HARD to understand?  ::)

Yes, of course, because Christians were after all the only intolerant people in history . . .  ::) Oh, and now that Christianity isn't "mandatory" there is freedom of religion and everyone's happy! Come on now, people are not much more (if at all) happier now than they were when Christianity was "mandatory." And as for freedom of religion, well it tries exists in former Christian societies. However, I could name quite a few other societies where freedom of religion is hardly tolerated, but that's not the point of this discussion. (Free Tibet!)
Quote
Well, if one has to be "blackmailed" into doing something, then, surely, it's a relgion that is goes against nature.

I'll be cynical about this one. "Blackmail" is against human nature? Please, where did it stem from?
Quote
Isn't anti-Christianity a serious view?

IMO, anti-Christian/Muslim/Pagan/[whatever you want] views all speak of an archaic mindset that allows selective intolerance.
Quote
CHILL. No one is trying to take Jesus away from you  :P

Point?

Really now, this is quite sad. I thought that this discussion could amble along nicely, but I guess that I was wrong. It's unfortunate that one person can chime in with his/her irrational opinions which do nothing but lower the level of discussion to vitrolic rhetoric. It's sad too.

2
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 01, 2005, 05:28:53 PM »
Quote

I didn't ask you in the first place. But thank you for responding. Unfortunately dictionaries fall extremely short of defining things like this.

Your questions were directed at me. You should have specified that they were rhetorical.

3
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 01, 2005, 05:26:53 PM »
Quote

Ok, you should be more specific and quote me  ;). Again, this is too subjective, it goes by some very specific standards, sort of like "Native Americans were savages and we're not" type of thing.

I did quote you.

Do you believe in an objective reality? Or, are you one of those people who claim that the tree made no sound because no one could hear it? ;)

Oh, and what subjective standards? I thought that it was a pretty good definition, and it was from a dictionary -- that's about as objective as it gets.  :-/

4
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 01, 2005, 05:16:00 PM »
Quote

What is evil? And what is right and wrong? Right for whom? Wrong for whom? Most of it is so subjective, depending on whom you talk to....

Look them up for yourself -- I'm not a dictionary!

5
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 01, 2005, 05:08:11 PM »
Quote

I still don't understand what this means. Can you sin if you don't understand the meaning of "sin"?  ???  ;)

. . . I thought that I was defining "decline."

6
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 01, 2005, 05:07:18 PM »
Quote

I am still waiting for the definition of "sin" then, because I obviously don't understand it.

It's an inherently evil nature. Actually I don't have a definition of it because I don't really think about it. I tend to look at things as right, wrong, or "err."

7
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 01, 2005, 05:04:52 PM »
Quote

Define "decline"  ;)

Well, as Webster would say, "to tend toward an inferior state or weaker condition." I have to agree.  ;)

8
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 01, 2005, 05:00:21 PM »
Quote
No matter how you define sin, a newborn child is innocent of any sin.

But what if you defined sin as something that we're all born with?  ;)

Never say "no matter how you define."  8)

9
Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about orthodox religion
« on: February 01, 2005, 04:49:08 PM »
Quote
I think religion has not improved life on earth one bit and has actually destroyed more than it has built. That is the material point.

I respectfully have to disagree. Of course almost every religion at one time or another played the "vandal" and destroyed what the preceeding religion had built up. However, after the initial destructive phase, the invading religion will build up civilization again! Besides, for almost as long as human have been humans, we have had some sort of spirituality/religion; and I don't think that we've been in a decline since we've emerged from the cave!

10
Quote
It's backed up by the fact that THE DNA PROVED AA WAS NOT AN SO THEREFORE SOMEONE HAD TO HAVE FED THEM TO HER BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT ANASTASIA!!!!!

"SOMEONE HAD TO HAVE FED THEM TO HER?" I don't see why that has to be the case. Maybe AA did actually know what she was talking about? And that in no way means that she was AN. There are many possibilities . . .
Quote
I never said I had any proof it was Botkin, no one does, but it is a possible and very likely theory.

This guy openly claims it was Botkin:

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

As far as 'dissing' him, all I'm saying is that he was a likely source of information since he knew AN.  No one here has any proof but it doesn't stop people from speculating. Speaking of defaming, what about the guy who accused Queen Elizabeth II of switching the intestines and rigging the results?? People say all kinds of things here. I think the reason people get so ferocious over the suggestion that Botkin did it is because it makes too much sense and hurts the AA case so badly! ;)

It's not because it hurts the AA case. I mean if there is no proof there is no threat! It's just that I thought you didn't believe in theorizing and subjective speculation, but I guess I was wrong.

11
Quote
Makes a lot more sense than believing she actually was Anastasia;) It's mine and Alice's, and writer John Godl's opinion that Gleb had a big hand in feeding her the memories. Since he is dead this can never be proven or disproved, but it's a good guess since SOMEBODY DID feed her memories because she WASN'T ANASTASIA. While we can only speculate on who, it happened.

Yes, it is your opinion: but what exactly is it backed up by? Oh and BTW, I do believe that you are making a fundamental error when you say that "SOMEBODY DID feed her memories." That little statement is not backed up by any evidence and the fact that you would make it makes me seriously doubt whether you honestly seek the truth.  :-/
Quote
There is no 'memory' that can't be explained away as someone who lived in Russia before the revolution telling her.

Oh, I'm sure that there are. But I'm not going off on that tangent because obviously we all have our own schema and we would all interpret any "memories" differently.
Quote
No, it's just correspondance of the family, with each other or others, discussing their sister being FS. This is the only one I can find right now, I save it on my computer in case it's needed, again, if I find the others I will save them too.

At least two of the siblings recognized her,Felix and Gertrude even if they at the end of the day refused to sign a statement that they had. Gertrude said to AA: You are my sister,I know it! I read about a letter sent to Gertrude by the lawyer of Barbara of Mecklenburg who was the formal opposer of AA in the trials. The lawyer Hans-Herman Krampff wrote to Mrs Gertrude Ellerik the 11 April 1959: "The research made in the meantime has resulted that at the confrotation with Mrs Anderson in 1938 you were not the only one who recognized her as your sister Franziska. Your brothers and sisters also did but abstained to say so in order not to make obstacles of the career of their sister. Afterwards your sister Maria has died and your brother Valerian lives in Poland. So it´s only you and your brother Felix left who can be heard at the trial in Hamburg. I would like to inform you that you have nothing to fear if you told the truth now since the time of a criminal act has expired". From the French journalist Dominique Auclère´s book. Anastasia qui etes-vous?

I didn't see the name Botkin.
Quote
Well, that is a big one :-/

Indeed!
Quote
Who among us does have proof? We're all just discussing.

I simply presumed that such an accusation against the Botkins required some sort of evidence. But as you have shown no evidence I think that you need to stop dissing them. You're not discussing, you're theorizing. I actually have no problem with that, but since you have shown yourself to be very unyielding when it comes to alternative theories, I think that it's only fair you are held to that same standard.

12
Quote
Isn't that what everyone does, study the evidence and form an opinion? Mine is just as good as anyone else's. I have already stated it's my opinion, it doesn't have to speak for you or anyone else. But since NO ONE can prove anything how does it hurt to offer a theory that makes sense?

Annie, where is the evidence that the Botkins fed AA her "memories?" You are forming a theory based on an assumption, and that makes no "sense."

Quote
Besides, there IS written evidence, letters of the FS family, that back up some of what I've said. That's another reason I believe it so strongly. Then there is the DNA.

Do these letters explain the orgin of AA's "memories?" Do these letters mention the Botkins as their possible orgin? I'm, just wondering because, frankly, I haven't seen them.  :-/

. . . and then there is the DNA; which comes back nicely to my original point: why stoop to the level of [some] AA supporters by making unsubstantiated subjective claims? I have seen you ridicule others for doing just that! I mean, you have your proof! I really don't think that making accusations serves you any purpose.

13
Annie, how can you go on and on about "subjective" evidence and how it lacks credibility, and then develop a subjective pet theory of your own and imagine it to be valid?

14
Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra - Slandered and Hated
« on: January 29, 2005, 09:44:23 AM »
Quote

What an interesting story!  I can't help but question, though, how much did her decision have to do with god being "more sacred to her than the sanctity of human life" and the more obvious suggestion (how *truly* can it be anything else...) that she wanted to escape from a father who was a sick pervert.  I really do not see what "love for god" has to do with her actions.  Maybe she *did* love god, but it wasn't that love that made her flee.  

I wonder the same thing. This story reminds me of a "novel" that I read when I was in elementary school titled Catherine Called Birdy, or something like that. Anyway, it was sort of in diary format and Catherince would recite which Saint's name day it was that day, sort of half mockingly too. But yes, some of them were actually quite amusing. I doubt their scholastic quality somewhat but here are are a few:

11th day of February, Feast of Saint Gobnet, virgin and beekeeper

13th day of February, Feast of Saint Modomnoc, who first brought bees to Ireland

16th day of February, Feast of Saint Juliana, who argued with the Devil

18th day of February, Feast of Saint Eudelme of Little Sodbury, about whom nothing is known except that she was a saint and I do not know how we even know that

. . . and today:

29th day of January, Feast of Saint Julian the Hospitaler, who accidentally killed his mother and father and in his grief and remorse built a hospital for the poor. Patron of inkeepers, boatmen and travellers

I have no idea why I posted all this. lol

15
News Links / Re: putin is the victim of the jews
« on: January 28, 2005, 10:05:08 PM »
Quote

Ummm.... JM?
Is not always agreeing with the political machinations of Sharon now considered anti semetic?

rskkiya
(an intelectual)

NO NO NO and NO, rskkiya. I myself disagree with many of Sharon's policies. I am not one of those idiots that thinks any criticism of Israel is a sign of anti-semitism. Israel is far from perfect and it is perfectly valid and necessary to criticize the State.

However, it does degenerate into anti-semitism when you single out only Israel for unique criticism and hold Israel to a higher standard than any other nation. It is also necessary to differentiate the actions of the Country from the people, of which there are many dissidents. Unfortunately, lately we have seen acts of violence against Jews (note, not Israelis) increase due to the policies of Israel, a country which not all Jewish people call home. This is what I meant when I said that the motivations have changed; they are now political.

And please, rskkiya! Don't be so dramatic and don't jump to conclusions. My post did not insinuate that mere criticism of Israel was anti-semitic, that is something you yourself took out of it. If I recall, I did not even mention Israel or Sharon at all.

*sigh* You spelled intellectual wrong.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22