[ced smythe]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

No, the consequence is part of the meaning.

Why would you want to talk about the consequence of pride when the simple question was what is pride? Why would you waste so much time doing this?

Look who’s accusing me of complex or convoluted language.

Feigning ignorance of such a simple statement changes nothing. Your complicated assertion:

What applies to the fear of what may harm what you love also applies to the outrage about harm done to what you love. Both may lead to hate. I’d say the latter is even likelier to do that than the former.

was an attempt to spread the issue; you've even brought outrage into a discussion on the meaning of pride. Hatred and outrage is not pride.

However often you repeat your statement, that doesn’t make it any more logical.

Hatred and outrage is not pride, Jew. No amount of scorn will alter that.

In what respect am I supposed to have read you wrong, my friend?

I don't have to riddle like this:

Your statement is wrong in two respects. One is that fear may but must not lead to hate. The other is that the same applies to pride.

Occams' razor says you are a relentless liar.

Wow, now he’s down to "Jews always lie" – BS …

There's that incubus on your mind. The rabbi is supposed to have unintentionally testified yet his speech was disseminated in an international Jew magazine on an issue of extreme importance to Jewry.

… and hollow conjectures based on equally hollow preconceived notions.

No meaningful photos though, so "hollow conjectures" etc. is hypocritical, nay just plain strange.

You're providing an appropiate designation for your friend Gerdes, who quotes people out of context all the time. As to your "explanation", I don’t see how it explains the catch phrase. Actually the "explanation" is such a showpiece of imbecility that the catch phrase would have been better off without it.

This statement changes nothing.

The only important issue I’m interested in is that of historical facts about a criminal regime’s crimes against innocent people and human garbage that denies such crimes in support of an ideological agenda.

The only agenda you're part of is the Jew ideological agenda, guaranteed.

No, it is an expression of a procedural rule rooted in Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that has nothing to do with the "legal domination" you phantasize about.

The standard - much like yourself - works for the Jew agenda only. The origin of the standard is irrelevant and typically obfuscating.

I wouldn’t go there if I were you – at least as long as there’s no report from Mr. Krege, who unlike Prof. Kola (who seems to be pissed off at who commissioned his investigation) has no "technical" reason for not having published his report but has obviously refrained from publishing it because he found exactly what he had hoped not to find (see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 for details ).

This whole thread is about going there and finding answers; beating about the bush as the current investigations seem to be doing is more suspicious than ever.