Messages

16

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 31, 2004, 10:05:38 PM »

To 'Mark Byron'

You are using a modern politically correct standard, 'civil rights', and applying it to a different age.  

You are therefore committing the ultimate historical fallacy, chronological ethnocentricism.  

But just for the sake of argument, which government at any point in history has completely and indisputably applied the standard of civil rights to everyone's satisfaction?

17

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 31, 2004, 09:52:06 PM »

Rob, there is so much that was rejected out of hand by Sokolov and others, and unjustifiably so.  Am I going to cite one particular published paper that presents per se prima facie evidence that proves conclusively for all time against all comers that the Imperial family survived?  No.  

But there are more than enough published materials to justify my belief about rescue and survival.  

18

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 31, 2004, 06:31:29 PM »

Then if there was a 'People's Revenge,' why wasn't Ipatiev House stormed by thousands of angry peasants with pitchforks?

If there was so much anger, the guards would have let them in, don't you think?

19

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 31, 2004, 06:24:13 PM »

FA's explanation of my thinking, or knowledge, is inadequate and does not represent my assertions on the matter.

However, I refuse to go into detail.  So, I suppose since there is a vacuum, his comments are as good as any, I suppose. . .  

20

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 31, 2004, 06:22:07 PM »

There are plenty of credible but suppressed reports of the rescue.  You'll just have to look a little deeper.

Now, here's a hypo for someone who endorses the goofy concept of respondeat superior which you Guiastasia, are endorsing.

Imagine that your country has the law that whatever crimes are committed in your country by people under your charge, you are responsible for.  Can you see how this would lead to extreme injustice?

For example, under such a system (and it is the legal standard in California) a leader who has no direct control of those under him or her is responsible for crimes committed that he or she has no ability to control!

Here's another example, imagine that this leader has persons under his or her authority who secretly covet or even disagree with him or her and want that person to be embarassed or even made guilty of crime.  All they have to do is commit some atrocity, or even sanction it, and the leader is held responsible for something that he or she would not in any way, shape or form endorse, let alone want to have happen.  

Can you see why your argument regarding Nicholas' 'responsibility' or 'punishment' fails?  

21

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 31, 2004, 06:05:57 PM »

I'm sorry Antonio, that was directed to Penny.  

And Penny, no, I don't believe you are a monster.  So I apologize to you personally, and to anybody who gets that impression from my post.  

22

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 31, 2004, 05:54:05 PM »

And what precisely is this 'why' by which you can see some (obscure) justification for killing Nicholas?

Of course, this is an academic question because much to the Bolshevik's chagrin, Nicholas along with his family, were rescued.

23

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 31, 2004, 05:02:20 PM »

Penny's comments go right to the heart of why I cannot endorse her book, res ipsa loquitur, they speak for themselves.  

24

The Final Chapter / Re: those anxieties

« on: May 12, 2004, 01:46:24 AM »

Well, it seems to have been a bit of a tempest in a teapot.  

You've even had the opportunity to hear from the author in question regarding your concerns.  So hopefully you can ease your mind and rest easier about your fears, which are most likely unfounded.

   

25

The Final Chapter / Re: Were the Grand Duchesses raped?

« on: May 11, 2004, 09:35:25 PM »

I must apologize to the young lady who started this thread.  I understand that in reading that particular book, your thoughts may have turned to the unlikely scenario you originally inquired about at the outset of this thread.

There is no evidence of any such act(s), and given the nature of the criminal gang that had imprisoned the family, it would have been entirely out of character for them not to have bragged about what virile men they wanted everyone to think they were.  

26

The Russian Revolution / Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?

« on: May 11, 2004, 02:30:56 PM »

Right.  No 'Abdicate,' 'Bequeath Our Rightful Inheritance' et cetera to be found anywhere in the body of the text.  

Again, it would be most reasonable to remove the misleading reference to abdication from the title of that particular section of the website.  

27

The Russian Revolution / Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?

« on: May 11, 2004, 12:36:51 PM »

As neither the term, nor any semantic analogue of the word or act 'to abdicate' appears in the body of the text, it would be appropriate for the Website to remove the grossly inaccurate reference to 'Michael's Abdication' from the title.  

To abdicate is to renounce one's God-given rights.  Michael didn't do so.  If the people of Russia wished him to do so, he would have ruled.   That is not abdication.

It should be pointed out that this was the first time in Russia's history that common ordinary people were given the opportunity to choose the form of government they wanted to have, and not have it imposed upon them.  

The people of Russia were denied this opportunity by Kerensky, and the subsequent Soviet governments.

It is therefore, a disservice to Michael's wishes to label his proclamation as 'abdication' when clearly it was no such thing.

28

The Russian Revolution / Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?

« on: May 11, 2004, 12:12:38 PM »

'Appears' is not 'abdicate.'  

'That car appears to be a Porsche Speedster, but upon closer inspection, it is actually a fiberglass copy.'  

29

The Final Chapter / Re: Pointless conjecture, pointless thread

« on: May 11, 2004, 11:40:54 AM »

Given the bragging that these morons engaged in following the alleged murder, and the 'machismo' these lowlifes displayed for the rest of their lives, if anything like that occurred they would have bragged about any such conduct at any opportunity.

No such behavior occurred, let it go, and let this pathetic conjecture die.

30

The Russian Revolution / Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?

« on: May 11, 2004, 11:32:56 AM »

Michael never 'officially' abdicated.  He called for a free election to allow the Russian people to decide what type of government they wanted, but the words 'abdicate' or 'abdication' or any similar term were never used.