« This is Interesting... | Main | Al Masri: The CIA Made Him Do It »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c42969e200d8353b335769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SPIEGEL ONLINE: A Perverted New Low...:

» I Love Me Some German Moralizing from MilBlogs
I met David while in Germany and he truly is America's friend and he's dumbfounded by his own who have no morals. SPIEGEL ONLINE: A Perverted New Low.... Headline: "Psychology: Why some People want to have Sex with Buildings and... [Read More]

» I Love Me Some German Moralizing (really) from MilBlogs
I briefly met David while in Germany and he truly is America's friend and he's dumbfounded by his own who have no morals. (Correction - Author is Ray D not David) No matter. SPIEGEL ONLINE: A Perverted New Low.... Headline:... [Read More]

Comments

As profanatory as it is, this may be the solution to the 9/11 conundrum - the Islamic terrorists translated "fuck America" into the idea of penetrating the Big Apple with airplanes.

Poor Mrs. K. - she can´t even use these sharp-edged objects as sex toys without seriously hurting herself, and she can´t dig to the bottom of her sexual fantasies because she is clinging to her childhood toys.

I'm sorry to be freaking out like this. For some reason I kept reading that there's people in Germany that want to have sex with buildings. This is embarassing to be having a nervous break down right now. Let me check again. Nope, still people wanting to have sex with buildings. Does anyone know what the article is about?

This is National Enquirer territory. Next week can we expect the story on Hillary's Martian Baby?

Blejgll
I don't know what to say. I have a feeling I will be labeled as a troll for saying this but I'm just trying to give some honest criticism, I used to be very interested in your blog but articles like this are frankly ridiculous. How about some more quality posts?

So much for showing respect to the American friends. It doesn't matter that nearly 3000 people died in those buildings. Now it is apparently OK to exploit them for tasteless stories on people with sexual perversions.

You sure are trying very hard to get offended about it...

In light of previous SPON masterpieces like "Wahre Liebesdienerinnen" (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,332867,00.html) and "Panik vor dem Pissoir (http://www.beimami.com/index.php/10/panic-at-the-urinal)," it is certainly true that one would have to work hard to get upset about this one story in isolation; however, as evidenced by the large archive at this site, this is not a story that can be viewed in isolation.

Sadly, this garbage just combines two main areas of interest of SPON's sophisticated readers: anti-Americanism and perverse tripe. If the article's authors really wanted to be bold, they would have published a picture of a woman pining after a mosque.

polylux, a german tv-show which is produced by the rbb (ard affiliate), aired a similar story a few months ago, if i remember correctly.
back then it was satire. in this case i'm not quite sure, since it was posted in the 'psychologie'-section.
anyways, it's beyond me how an article that decribes some weird-looking sexual orientations, like a swedish woman marrying the berlin wall, or the psychology student bill rifka who loves his male ibook, and, yes, that chic from berlin who sleeps with a wtc-model equates to anti-americanism.
one could argue if the media should publish such pieces since it seems to be the aim to make fun of those poor individuals portrayed there. but that's another story

I'm sorry but this made me laugh. I just could not take this article seriously.

I laugh at the woman who was stupid enough to pose for this pic - if I take the article at face value, yea, she wants to fuck what Freudians would consider the phallic symbols of the U.S. - the World Trade Center.

The idea that this media outlet expects anyone to take this article seriously is hilarious. They must think I'm stupid.

Oh. Wait.

I agree with the comment by Tarito.
By posting articles of this level you are sinking to the same level. Surely you can find influential papers and articles from Germany that make commenting on them more worth-while,

@Sagredo

On the contrary. Ray is exposing SPON's journalistic niveau, not sinking to it. The distinction obvious.

@beimami
Au contaire, the question is of re-exposing again and again an already naked whore versus exposing one all dressed up as a lady.

@Sagredo

Do I detect some intellectual dishonesty? Spiegel is a powerful and popular journalistic enterprise in Germany. Why shouldn't the the journalistic character of the publication repeatedly be held to the highest standards? The fact is that the naked whore you are talking about remains profitable and popular in Germany -- despite being "re-exposed again and again." So who is messed up; Spiegel, Germans in general, or both?

It seems to me that an honest person has two options here; admit that they approve of Spiegel's perversions, or join the civilized world.

@beimami

"It seems to me that an honest person has two options here; admit that they approve of Spiegel's perversions, or join the civilized world."

A red herring, wrapped in a false dichotomy, seasoned with a liberal sprinkling of ad hominem, and all that in one small sentence. The mind, she boggles!

Loaded words: honest, perversion, civilised world
Loaded phrase: "join the civilised world"
Unsubstanciated assertion: "two options"

This is almost a textbook example of dishonest argument. It seems to me you're trying, as it were, to outSpiegel the Spiegel.

So what do you do for an encore?

As for the original posting, yep, man kann die Suppe auch so lange bürsten, bis man Haare in ihr findet. Man konnte ja schon fast die Schlürfgeräusche hören, wie man sich die righteous indignation aus den Fingerchen gesogen hat.

Jörg

The Wikipedia article Objektophilie links to Mrs. K.´s homepage, which features a collection of WTC pictures that can be rated safe for work by any standard, and (in its links section) links to Mrs. K.´s contribution to the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation page. I must admit, had I found this by any other way, I would not have the slightest idea that there might be a sexual side to it.

We were told to be kind and keep an open an open mind back in 1943. Should we abandon that policy now?

We must be kind
And with an open mind
We must endeavor to find
A way-
To let the Germans know that when the war is over
They are not the ones who'll have to pay.
We must be sweet-
And tactful and discreet
And when they've suffered defeat
We mustn't let
Them feel upset
Or ever get
The feeling that we're cross with them or hate them,
Our future policy must be to reinstate them.

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
When our victory is ultimately won,
It was just those nasty Nazis who persuaded them to fight
And their Beethoven and Bach are really far worse than their bite
Let's be meek to them-
And turn the other cheek to them
And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.
Let's give them full air parity-
And treat the rats with charity,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

We must be just-
And win their love and trust
And in addition we must
Be wise
And ask the conquered lands to join our hands to aid them.
That would be a wonderful surprise.
For many years-
They've been in floods of tears
Because the poor little dears
Have been so wronged and only longed
To cheat the world,
Deplete the world
And beat
The world to blazes.
This is the moment when we ought to sing their praises.

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
When we've definitely got them on the run-
Let us treat them very kindly as we would a valued friend
We might send them out some Bishops as a form of lease and lend,
Let's be sweet to them-
And day by day repeat to them
That 'sterilization' simply isn't done.
Let's help the dirty swine again-
To occupy the Rhine again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
When the age of peace and plenty has begun.
We must send them steel and oil and coal and everything they need
For their peaceable intentions can be always guaranteed.
Let's employ with them a sort of 'strength through joy' with them,
They're better than us at honest manly fun.
Let's let them feel they're swell again and bomb us all to hell again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
For you can't deprive a gangster of his gun
Though they've been a little naughty to the Czechs and Poles and Dutch

But I don't suppose those countries really minded very much
Let's be free with them and share the B.B.C. with them.
We mustn't prevent them basking in the sun.
Let's soften their defeat again-and build their bloody fleet again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Noel Coward

@Jörg

Where is the ad hominism in my comment? Where is the dishonesty? My comment directly addesses Sagredo's argument that it is somehow inappropriate to criticize the SPON article in question. It was Spiegel that published the article, not the Medienkritik. If the article makes you or Sagredo uncomfortable, address your comments to Spiegel instead of attacking anyone who scrutinizes the article. Moreover, you have egregiously mischaracterized the sentence that begins "It seems to me..." That is clearly my personal opinion, not an "unsubstanciated assertion."

In contrast, your comment does not address the matter of Ray's post at all, concentrating instead on attacking me personally. Why not tell us what you think of the SPON article? Do you consider it good journalism? Explain to us why you think it is inappropiate to expose the article to the English-speaking public.

@beimami

Does the word "perversion" ring a bell?

From Wikpedia: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument."

Your dishonesty lies, as I outlined in the above posting, in a compound fallacity of irrelevance in your assertion, and an assertion it is. Do I have to parse the sentence for you again to point out how loaded your language is?

As for the Spiegel article, it was in print btw., I find it mildly irrelevant, filler material provided for the guffaw effect. The original posting was clearly straining at a gnat, mightily labouring to find offense where there isn't any. The original posting was a vapid appeal to emotion, using misrepresentation and misdirection, loaded language and kneejerking. "So much for showing respect to the American friends. It doesn't matter that nearly 3000 people died in those buildings. Now it is apparently OK to exploit them for tasteless stories on people with sexual perversions." forsooth! Where was the exploiting? Where was the disrespect?

"Explain to us why you think it is inappropiate to expose the article to the English-speaking public."

Strawman argument. I have written no such thing, nor do I hold such oppinion. Would you mind not putting words in my mouth? I do, however, find offense in the obvious misrepresentation that lead the Germanically challenged in this group to somewhat stupid conclusions. However, it's not the first, and certainly will not be the last time.

Jörg

I do, however, find offense in the obvious misrepresentation that lead the Germanically challenged in this group to somewhat stupid conclusions.

Jörg

Now that you resort to ad hominem attacks, would you care to explain who are the "Germanically challenged in this group"? I see you are using the plural, so would you explain yourself?

@WhatDoIKnow

Germanically Challenged <---> Non-German Speakers (or is that German Non-Speakers?)

People, whose command of this hyah fahn language could do with improvement. The "my German is nonexistant/rusty/not so good"s do tend to be quite visible. Since those tend to rely on the interpretatation of the original posters, the conclusions tend to be, to put it charitably, somewhat off.

Jörg

@Jorg

The word perverse is an appropriate adjective for the Spiegel article in my estimation, don't you agree?

Thanks for the definition of ad hominem, but I still don't find any ad hominisms in my comments. Sagredo objected to the posting here of the Spiegel article, accusing Ray of "...sinking to the same level [as Spiegel]" (no ad hominisms there, of course), and I directly addressed his objection. On the other hand, I can find loads of ad hominisms in some of the other comments -- "vapid appeal", "Germanically challenged", "...trying, as it were, to out Spiegel the Spiegel" and "stupid conclusions" come to mind.

As far as the "assertion" goes, our differences may be of a cultural nature: In the English-speaking world there is a distinction between opinions and assertions.

As far my being "Germanically challenged" goes, well, I don't know what else to tell you other than that I spent twenty years in Germany, my wife is German, I have a PhD in mathematics from a German university, and I taught masters-level courses for five years at the same university.

As to your claim that you never said it was inappropriate to expose the article, I refer you to your words: "As for the original posting, yep, man kann die Suppe auch so lange bürsten, bis man Haare in ihr findet. Man konnte ja schon fast die Schlürfgeräusche hören, wie man sich die righteous indignation aus den Fingerchen gesogen hat."

As to the imputed irrelevance of the article, I refer you to my earlier post:

In light of previous SPON masterpieces like "Wahre Liebesdienerinnen" (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,332867,00.html) and "Panik vor dem Pissoir (http://www.beimami.com/index.php/10/panic-at-the-urinal)," it is certainly true that one would have to work hard to get upset about this one story in isolation; however, as evidenced by the large archive at this site, this is not a story that can be viewed in isolation.

Sadly, this garbage just combines two main areas of interest of SPON's sophisticated readers: anti-Americanism and perverse tripe. If the article's authors really wanted to be bold, they would have published a picture of a woman pining after a mosque.

@Jörg
"The "my German is nonexistant/rusty/not so good"s do tend to be quite visible."
Ja ,ja, Jörg. Before you could criticise a country or a countries magazine you should be able to (perfectly) speak the language, or? I wish that would apply to germans as well.

I would make this site http://usaerklaert.wordpress.com a must for any german that would like to comment on the USA. It might explain a thing or two to the " ah so well educated" germans.

@Jörg
"The "my German is nonexistant/rusty/not so good"s do tend to be quite visible."
Ja ,ja, Jörg. Before you could criticise a country or a countries magazine you should be able to (perfectly) speak the language, or? I wish that would apply to germans as well.

I would make this site http://usaerklaert.wordpress.com a must for any german that would like to comment on the USA. It might explain a thing or two to the " ah so well educated" germans.

@beimami

"The word perverse is an appropriate adjective for the Spiegel article in my estimation, don't you agree?"

Of course not. And again, we have a bit of dishonest argument here, nota beneappeal to higher authority. Oh, well, parsing time. Let's see: "It seems to me that an honest person has two options here; admit that they approve of Spiegel's perversions, or join the civilized world." was the original statement.

o (Assertion) There are two well defined options.
o (Assertion) An honest person would see only these options.
o (Conclusion) Any person that does not see these options is by asserion dishonest.
o (Sweeping Assertion) The Spiegel is offering perversions, unspoken here, generally, mostly.
o (Sweeping Assertion) The Spiegel is uncivilised.
o (False Dichotomy) The person has either to approve of ... perversions or be civilised.

So, any person that fails to see the dichotomy is dishonest or uncivilised (not part of the civilised world?)? Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

As for the above statement, traing to appeal to emotion does go beyond opinion.

As for your "As far as the "assertion" goes, our differences may be of a cultural nature: In the English-speaking world there is a distinction between opinions and assertions.", by appealing to higher authority you stepped beyond opinion. You are trying to enlist support of your reader by appeal to emotion.

As for your having German, good for you. However, it doesn't seem so hot: "As to your claim that you never said it was inappropriate to expose the article, I refer you to your words: "As for the original posting, yep, man kann die Suppe auch so lange bürsten, bis man Haare in ihr findet. Man konnte ja schon fast die Schlürfgeräusche hören, wie man sich die righteous indignation aus den Fingerchen gesogen hat.""

In no way I said in these words that it was inappropriate to expose the article, whatever that means. I vented an _opinion_, n.b. without trying to appeal emotionally to the reader with phrases like "don't you agree?". Now, you may agree or disagree, but I am not smarming up to you.

Kindly point out to me where exactly the offensiveness of this article is. Do be so kind as to point out the "perversions" that you perceive, not in the objectophila it describes but in the treatment of the subject. "Sadly, this garbage just combines two main areas of interest of SPON's sophisticated readers: anti-Americanism and perverse tripe. If the article's authors really wanted to be bold, they would have published a picture of a woman pining after a mosque." doesn't quite cut it. I refer you to the posting that had the website of that woman with exactly these pictures. As for anti-Americanism, point that out to me. It was sorely lacking in the original positng, too. Your moral and righteous indignation would sound a tad more credible if one could infer somehow from your verbiage that you had actually read the article in question.

Jörg

@garydausz

"The "my German is nonexistant/rusty/not so good"s do tend to be quite visible."
Ja ,ja, Jörg. Before you could criticise a country or a countries magazine you should be able to (perfectly) speak the language, or? I wish that would apply to germans as well."

True. However, if you do not speak the language adequately, you cannot, with any degree of accuracy, read between the lines and understand the cultural backdrop and background. Which means that any comment or criticism based on such understanding is largely third- of fourth-hand. I'd like you to apply the "quis custodied ipsos custodes" to this particular site and ask yourself to what behoof it beats its little tindrum.

"I would make this site http://usaerklaert.wordpress.com a must for any german that would like to comment on the USA. It might explain a thing or two to the " ah so well educated" germans."

Very nice. However, as I already asserted, some of my best relatives are US-American, I've been and worked there and US-American literature is part of my daily recreation. Can you say as much for yourself?

Jörg

@ Joerg,

If the article's authors really wanted to be bold, they would have published a picture of a woman pining after a mosque." doesn't quite cut it.

Apparently not. That is why SPON put the WTC picture on its homepage and featured it in the article. That was their editorial call. If this were an isolated case - it would not be a big deal. But it is not isolated. This is clearly part of a much larger pattern. Demeaning the United States and its symbols clearly comes easily to SPIEGEL. We will continue to report on it as long as it continues.

"However, as I already asserted, some of my best relatives are US-American"

That's interesting. Do you feel a need to prove you are "pro-American"? Seems a bit insecure to me. We have an awful lot of trolls who continually parrot this line: We really, really love this site (really) - but this posting is just terrible and REALLY discredits you.

Needless to say - when we receive a comment like that - which contains little if any constructive criticism - and is a thinly veiled attack on our site and its reputation - our tendency is to dismiss it.

Further, do you have "not best" relatives as well? Interesting use of English - since you are so interested in lecturing us all. But we know you are not an Oberlehrer.

But I should stop here: By now you probably feel the deep urge to write a long, snarky, pseudo-intellectual response. I'm sure you won't fail to impress us all with your intellect and dazzle us with your superior vocabulary. Maybe you would like to provide us a reading list as well...?

@Jörg, Jörg, Jörg,

I repeat once again the core of my argument. Maybe you will understand it this time: "...it is certainly true that one would have to work hard to get upset about this one story in isolation; however, as evidenced by the large archive at this site, this is not a story that can be viewed in isolation."

I didn't say the article is offensive, I said it is perverse tripe. And if you don't think that wanting to have sex with buildings is perverse, then I hope you don't have any house pets.

P.S. My eyesight isn't what it used to be, but I really don't see the mosque you apparently claim is in the picture. If you see one there, then you need help.


I can only say one thing: Jörg is nowhere to be seen when DMK exposes blatant and vicious ant-American sentiment in the German media. He has no interest in condemning it. Therefore, I have absolutely no interest in his rantings, no matter how much thought he thinks he puts into them.

Jörg, you engage the DMK readers not by preaching at them form the top of the buildings, but by sincerely discussing the issues that make the object of DMK - the constant damaging of US-German relations by the bias in the German media. You excel at the preaching part and are AWOL at the latter part. Until that changes, you won't win any readership here.

@RayD

\begin{quote}
\begin{quote}
"If the article's authors really wanted to be bold, they would have published a picture of a woman pining after a mosque."
\end{quote}
doesn't quite cut it.
\end{quote}

You are quoting out of context and have snipped the quote badly. The part in quotes was not posted by me, the latter part was.

"Apparently not. That is why SPON put the WTC picture on its homepage and featured it in the article. That was their editorial call. If this were an isolated case - it would not be a big deal. But it is not isolated. This is clearly part of a much larger pattern. Demeaning the United States and its symbols clearly comes easily to SPIEGEL. We will continue to report on it as long as it continues."

Do as you please. However, in this particular case you are straining at a gnat. That was what caught my eye.

"However, as I already asserted, some of my best relatives are US-American"

"That's interesting. Do you feel a need to prove you are "pro-American"? Seems a bit insecure to me. We have an awful lot of trolls who continually parrot this line: We really, really love this site (really) - but this posting is just terrible and REALLY discredits you."

Do I really have to give you a lesson in USAian colloquialisms, you know, Oberlehrer-like? The particular phrase I used quite consciously is a typical blanket apology used by bigots, you know, 'some of my best friends are Negroes/ Jews/ Hispanics...' If you are looking for a word for the type of use of phrase here, it would be "wry".

I am not "pro-American" in any meaning that it is used on this site. Neither am I "anti-American" in the same reasoning. I keep my own council. However, do assume that I am not alltogether unfamiliar with a lot of things USAian. More familiar than from the evidence of it, a lot of resondents here.

And as for your site, well, it has its ups sometimes. But largely I class it along the lines of Jean-Remy von Matt, with most of the blogosphere.

Jörg

Ps: Nice touch, what with the "long, snarky, pseudo-intellectual response", maybe you should have stopped

@beimami
"I repeat once again the core of my argument. Maybe you will understand it this time: "...it is certainly true that one would have to work hard to get upset about this one story in isolation; however, as evidenced by the large archive at this site, this is not a story that can be viewed in isolation.""

Ummm, isn't that typ of response called kneejerk reaction? And based on a probably biased interpretation and selection? I do declare!

"I didn't say the article is offensive, I said it is perverse tripe. And if you don't think that wanting to have sex with buildings is perverse, then I hope you don't have any house pets."

Surely thous dost protest too much. You were getting your knicker all into a twist, what with your choice of verbiage. As to having sex with buildings, what goes on between consenting adults and kilotons of concrete is their business alone (as long it doesn't violate zoning laws, and gets the building authorities all into a tizzy). However, even if I were to judge it perverse (and I do judge it four sigma west of strange), writing about perversion is not perverse in itself. Is all clear now?

Nice little barb about the house pets. Nice little example of appeal to the irrelevant.

"P.S. My eyesight isn't what it used to be, but I really don't see the mosque you apparently claim is in the picture. If you see one there, then you need help."

Are you in the habit of talking to yourself? That mosque-thing is all yours, I merely quoted your little lament, saying that it wouldn't cut it, the mustard presumably. Again, kindly quote the offensive and "anti-American" content from the article to prove your assertion. You can do in German, I am quite conversant in that language, too.

Jörg

@WhatDoIKnow

"I can only say one thing: Jörg is nowhere to be seen when DMK exposes blatant and vicious ant-American sentiment in the German media. He has no interest in condemning it. Therefore, I have absolutely no interest in his rantings, no matter how much thought he thinks he puts into them."

Suit yourself.

"Jörg, you engage the DMK readers not by preaching at them form the top of the buildings, but by sincerely discussing the issues that make the object of DMK - the constant damaging of US-German relations by the bias in the German media. You excel at the preaching part and are AWOL at the latter part. Until that changes, you won't win any readership here."

No, I won't win any *credibility* amongst the usual suspects. However, the readership may or may not extend beyond that. And as for preaching, I don't do religion. I leave that to you.

Jörg

I managed to leave out a crucial part of a sentence in the posting to RayD:

I am not "pro-American" in any meaning that it is used on this site. Neither am I "anti-American" in the same reasoning. I keep my own council. However, do assume that I am not alltogether unfamiliar with a lot of things USAian. More familiar than from the evidence of it, a lot of resondents here about things German.

Jörg

Quite a huge rant for someone who has so little to say.

Yep. Try to find contend in Jörg's postings, and you will mostly end up empty-handed. It's all about word games, isn't it Jörg?

"Surely thous dost protest too much. You were getting your knicker all into a twist, what with your choice of verbiage. As to having sex with buildings, what goes on between consenting adults and kilotons of concrete is their business alone (as long it doesn't violate zoning laws, and gets the building authorities all into a tizzy). However, even if I were to judge it perverse (and I do judge it four sigma west of strange), writing about perversion is not perverse in itself. Is all clear now?
Nice little barb about the house pets. Nice little example of appeal to the irrelevant."

"Are you in the habit of talking to yourself? That mosque-thing is all yours, I merely quoted your little lament, saying that it wouldn't cut it, the mustard presumably. Again, kindly quote the offensive and "anti-American" content from the article to prove your assertion. You can do in German, I am quite conversant in that language, too."

Yada, yada, yada. Holy crap. I think you are watching too much Sabine Christiansen and the lot. And Mr. "Read between the lines you can not" smart-ass, it is Anti-American because all Spiegel can do is either bring heinous and factless charges against all things American and when they're not doing so, they bring an article on buildophiles or whatever they're called and just so *happen* to visualize that with the WTC. Which has "Why not? We don't give a fuck." written all over it. And you won't notice because you don't either, not because it wouldn't be there and it's just the uneducated Americans here are not quite up the same level of your pseudo-intellectual babble. Und Deutsch muss man für diesen Artikel schon gar nicht sprechen. Nur Augen im Kopf haben.

@Jörg
"Very nice. However, as I already asserted, some of my best relatives are US-American, I've been and worked there and US-American literature is part of my daily recreation. Can you say as much for yourself?"

I am all so impressed Jörg. Well, yes I can. I have lived in Germany all my life. So german media and literature is (unfortunately) part of my daily life. The mentioned article in Spiegel may not be one of the worst examples of german medias anti-american stance but it is a perfect example of german hypocrisy and untastefullness when it comes to the US. Just imagine what an outcry there would have been if an american magazine would have depicted a similar picture of e.g. the Berliner Funkturm after it would have been blown to bits by terrorists...

@Jörg

"Ummm, isn't that typ of response called kneejerk reaction? And based on a probably biased interpretation and selection? I do declare!"

Ummm, isn't that typ of response called kneejerk reaction?

"Surely thous dost protest too much. You were getting your knicker all into a twist, what with your choice of verbiage."

Ummm, isn't that typ of response called kneejerk reaction?

"As to having sex with buildings, what goes on between consenting adults and kilotons of concrete is their business alone (as long it doesn't violate zoning laws, and gets the building authorities all into a tizzy). However, even if I were to judge it perverse (and I do judge it four sigma west of strange), writing about perversion is not perverse in itself. Is all clear now?"

Ummm, isn't that typ of response called kneejerk reaction?

'Nice little barb about the house pets. Nice little example of appeal to the irrelevant."

Ummm, isn't that typ of response called kneejerk reaction?

"Are you in the habit of talking to yourself?"

Ummm, isn't that typ of response called kneejerk reaction?

Nun, hoffentlich hilft dir diese Uebung die Inhaltslosigkeit und Hysterie deiner Argumentation zu erkennen. Du argumentierst wirklich auf dem Niveau eines Vierzehnjaehrigen. Vielleicht kannst Du andere Schueler mit deinem daemmlichen Geplapper beeindrucken, aber so wirst du unter Erwachsenen nicht als ernstzunehmender Gerspraechspartner akzeptiert.

"That mosque-thing is all yours, I merely quoted your little lament, saying that it wouldn't cut it, the mustard presumably."

Ach ja? Ich habe geschrieben, "If the article's authors really wanted to be bold, they would have published a picture of a woman pining after a mosque." Deine Antwort darauf war, "I refer you to the posting that had the website of that woman with exactly these pictures." Du behauptest also klipp und klar, dass eine Moschee im Bild zu sehen ist. Wie sollte man das denn sonst verstehen?

Again, kindly quote the offensive and "anti-American" content from the article to prove your assertion.

Es gibt nichts dergleichen zu zitieren. Wie ich schon angedeutet habe, liegt der Antiamerikanismus auf klassische goebbelsche Art im symbolischen Charakter des Bildes gekoppelt mit dem gesamten Inhalt des Artikels. Um eine beliebte Argumentationsweise der Linken zu verdrehen, wer diese Propaganda verteitigt, verteidigt auch Goebbels.

For anyone interested in getting the REAL story behind this completely bogus post, please go to: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,482192,00.html

It's in English, if that's any help to you.

as soon as someone points out the true story behind the pack of lies in this post, nobody has anything to say. typical.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28