sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A question...

Subject: Re: A question...
From: "gnenian"
Date: 30 Apr 2006 01:57:15 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, sci.lang, soc.history.ancient
joerevskelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> "gnenian" <GNENIAN@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1146342745.283908.52510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> joerevskelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1anvxjbq5qaok$.ci4087exgnji$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:35:44 +0200, Peter Alaca
> > > <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> wrote in
> > > <news:445387d7$1$12852$dbd4d001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
> > > sci.archaeology,sci.lang,soc.history.ancient:
> > >
> > >> Ruud Harmsen wrote: news:cuo6525i1nfo5tecrsh40e6pnrj3m5vbdn@xxxxxxx
> > >
> > >>> Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:41:37 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
> > >>> <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
> > >
> > >>>> Are you unaware that Antwerp was bombarded nonstop for 110 days,
> > >>>> following a similar campaign against Rotterdam?
> > >
> > >>> The bombardement of Rotterdam was on May 14, 1940. The bombs were
> > >>> dropped by aeroplanes.
> > >>> About Antwerp I only find references to V1 bombardments. The first V1
> > >>> test were done in 1941 (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1) and
> > >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb) "was used operationally
> > >>> between June 1944 and March 1945".
> > >>> So how the attack on Rotterdam could have followed a similar one on
> > >>> Antwerp is unclear to me.
> > >
> > >>>> Antwerp was bombarded nonstop for 110 days
> > >
> > >>> The first German attacks on Belgium and the Netherlands were May 10,
> > >>> 1940, NL capitulated May 15 (after threats that more cities would
> > >>> undergo Rotterdam's fate), Belgium capitulated on May 28. So please
> > >>> explain your 110 days regarding Antwerp.
> > >
> > >> Ruud, het is beter om die gozer te vermijden.
> > >> Hij liegt aan alle kanten.
> > >
> > > If you mean Giwer, you're right.  He has for years.  (And
> > > Martin Niemöller to the contrary notwithstanding, I think
> > > that Peter's making a mistake: the way to deal with Giwer is
> > > not to give him a forum, but simply to point out what he is
> > > and then ignore him.)
> >
> > If he is not pushed a bit, then some of his posts seem plausible; at least
> > to idiots. And there are enough idiots on usenet that it is not healthy
> > for
> > a poster like him to seem plausible.
>
> Or the squealing group huggers trying to handbag him are even more
> stupid than he supposedly is.
>
> Oh come on: Just say "Heil Hitler", You know you want to!

And that is different from judeo nazi unionism how?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>