From email@example.com Thu Feb 5 22:29:29 EST 1998 Article: 163000 of alt.revisionism From: "CARLOS W. PORTER"
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: ausrotten of 3 February 1998 Date: 4 Feb 1998 18:37:37 GMT Organization: Tornado News Processing System Lines: 137 Message-ID: <01bd318a$49f542e0$095795c2@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: 188.8.131.52 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news-fra.maz.net!news.algonet.se!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.planetc.com!tornix.tornado.be!not-for-mail Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:163000 REPLY OF 3 FEBRUARY 1998 Dear Mr. McCarthy, a) If use of the word "Ausrottung" doesn't prove the existence of the gas chambers, then what have we proven by proving that somebody used the word "Ausrottung"? Nobody denies that people were shot. b) When American statesmen said they were going to put a man on the moon in ten years, does the promise in itself prove that they did it? c) Perhaps we disagree as to the meaning of the word "plan". To me, a "plan" is something worked out in detail. No "plan" to exterminate the Jews, or anyone else, has ever been found. d) I have never heard of a murder case in which a defendant got convicted because the jury looked something up in a dictionary. e) When MGM -- a Jewish-controlled movie studio -- made cartoons of Bugs Bunny handing out bombs in ice cream cones to Japanese children, is that evidence of a "plan" to "exterminate" the Japanese? f) If you don't believe in the existence of the White Race, why don't you take a walk through downtown Detroit or East St. Louis late at night? Other people do believe in the existence of the White Race and will kill you to prove it. g) I do not believe in the authenticity of the documents which you use to prove cremation times or anything else. I have discussed these documents in my article THE UNRELIABILITY OF DOCUMENTS IN JEAN-CLAUDE PRESSAC'S "TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS", and elsewhere. h) If I found a "copy" of an "official German document" stating that the Empire State Building has no ground floor and floats in the air by levitation, people would wonder if such a thing was in fact scientifically possible. The invention of absurd and preposterous "thought crimes" such as "Empire State Building Levitation Denial" or "denying the levitation of the Empire State Building" would be considered proof of nothing. Yet "official German documents" are produced "proving" that human bodies can be cremated in 30 - 45 minutes, 3 at a time, using coke for fuel, and this is taken seriously. Personally, I consider approximately 3/4 of the documents reproduced by Pressac to be forgeries or altered copies. i) I consider the Himmler speech to be an altered copy of a speech on the military situation; nothing more. To prove differently, you would have to do forensic tests on the paper. It would be cruel to leave you in suspense any longer. My sources (translating the German abbreviations into English) are: Langenscheidts Handwoerterbuch Englisch By Heinz Messinger and Werner Ruedenberg 1981 ISBN 3-468-5122-0 Ausrott/en v/t. (Plants) (also figurative): root out; (figurative), extirpate, eradicate, stamp out; (People) exterminate, wipe out; Ausrottung, f.: uprooting, extirpation, eradication; extermination; (Politics) (Entire peoples): also: genocide. Cassel's German and English Dictionary By Karl Breuil completely revised by Harold T. Betteridge, Funk & Wagnallis, NY 1958 and 1962. [No ISBN number] Ausrotten: v.a. extirpate, exterminate, root out, purge, stamp out, destroy. Ausrottung, f.: destruction, extermination, extirpation. I must point out a circular argument in the reasoning of your German-speaking friends who insist that the term must be translated as "extermination". They believe in the so-called Holocaust, so it is "extermination"; I don't believe in it, so, to me, it is "extirpation", most likely physical expulsion accompanied by some degree of killing for criminal offences or in reprisal for guerrilla warfare. I see no way around this problem, except that the burden of proof is on the accuser. As for my professional qualifications, it's really none of your business, but I've translated contracts involving tens of millions of dollars, and let me tell you something, I always get paid. If it's vague in the original, I leave it vague in the translation. Do you want to see my tax returns? 5 or 6 years ago, I made 60,000 dollars in one year, doing all the work myself. I usually make about half as much, but it's not worth earning more. Do you want to pay my Valued Added Tax (a kind of sales tax) for translations I did in the last 6 months alone? It comes to over 6,000 dollars. Shall I send you the tax form? Perhaps your friends at Nizkor will pay it for me. I've translated thousands of legal and technical documents, including medical reports, lab reports, accident reports, patent applications, laws, decrees, regulations, contracts, judgements, summonses, legal arguments, technical reports, property transfers, deeds, foreign exchange control regulations, court documents, financial reports and accounts, bond issues, loan contracts, insurance contracts, commercial correspondence, reports on mechanical heart valves, roofing systems, electrical systems, veterinary surgery, brain surgery, art, painting, computers, menus, advertising, etc. etc.. I am a qualified conference interpreter (although I have never worked as an interpreter) and a member of the Institute of Linguists, London, a recognized professional association. Why did I demand my German court documents in English so that "I wouldn't have to have everything translated"? For the same reason I told them I couldn't appear due to "pedal-driven brain-bashing machine induced injuries and severe radiation burns caused by a German WWII atomic bomb". Because they have no right to try me for anything, and because I have a right to cause them as much trouble as I possibly can. It's in the law. They are required to supply with all documents in my native language, and they persisted in refusing to do so. I have spoken very little German in the past eight years and do not translate into German. I believe I have a right to say that I do not feel sufficiently comfortable in spoken German to defend a court case, orally, before a German court. That is my right. I am a translator into English, not an interpreter into German. Perhaps you have no idea how difficult it is to speak correct German. I would speak much better German than I do if I did not speak Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian as well. Perhaps you wouldn't understand that. But since the Germans have been kind enough to offer me a "total immersion" refresher course in spoken German, there is some chance that my spoken German might improve somewhat in the near future, possible with some large admixture of slang. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in your problems with German documents. Faithfully, From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu Feb 5 22:29:30 EST 1998 Article: 163102 of alt.revisionism From: "CARLOS W. PORTER" Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Sonderbehandlung 5 February 1998 Date: 5 Feb 1998 11:27:38 GMT Organization: Tornado News Processing System Lines: 72 Message-ID: <01bd321a$ae22d9e0$055795c2@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.108.40.206 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.planetc.com!tornix.tornado.be!not-for-mail Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:163102 To Jamie McCarthy, Since we are all such hot-shots in the German language, and since dictionaries are infallible guides to the translation of certain words -- particularly in view of the manner in which WWII has altered the meaning of certain words -- I have the following question for you. I once translated an extremely lengthy commercial representation contract, >from German into English, between a world-famous automobile manufacture and all their car dealers in Germany. Among other things, it stated that if the representative sold enough cars, he would be "sonderbehandelt"; he would receive "Sonderbehandlung". Does this mean that the manufacturer is going to murder all the car dealers? And, if so, does my professional duty require me to reveal this information to the world? Since the dealers are to be killed for selling too many vehicles instead of too few, is this an example of the "extermination through work" which we are always hearing about? Perhaps this is what the smokestacks on the factories are for: the cremation of car dealers who sell too many cars. It's obvious! Why does the world stand by and do nothing? Also, when I translate a tourist brochure stating that a "Sonderzug" is being run to some ski resort during the winter months, should I warn the world that the skiiers (presumably those unable to ski productively or pay for enough lessons) are to be murdered upon arrival? My conscience is gnawing me; I cannot live with this knowledge any longer. Shall I seek an interview with the Pope to warn him of this fiendish plot to exterminate the world's car dealers and skiiers? (After all, the Pope's a Pole, he'll believe anything.) I feel that revelation of this knowledge may well ruin my translation business as well as directly endangering my life -- since the persons responsible for this plot will no doubt stop at nothing to conceal their diabolical designs -- but my duty to the world's car dealers and skiiers by far outweighs any consideration I may have for my personal safety. 'Tis a far, far, better thing I do, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah. I cannot live with this inner torment. Shall I commit self-suspension with a typewriter ribbon (if I can find one in these days of computers)? Your advice in this matter is much appreciated. Yours, CARLOS W. PORTER 5 FEBRUARY 1998 P.S. Please don't forget to write a Broadway play about me after my untimely demise. I assume that Nizkor can be relied upon to produce the literary works required to ensure my immortality as a martyr to the truth about this horrible Holocaust? P.P.S. When can we meet to discuss the royalty arrangements? I am urgent need of cash to pay all the back taxes on my translation work. Can we work out a payment in advance? I promise to furnish further details of this fiendish plot if the cash advance is sufficiently large. Please advise. From email@example.com Mon Feb 9 03:33:50 EST 1998 Article: 163355 of alt.revisionism From: "CARLOS W. PORTER" Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Ausrotten of 7 February 1997 Date: 7 Feb 1998 22:41:30 GMT Organization: Tornado News Processing System Lines: 91 Message-ID: <01bd33f4$5f5fe9c0$LocalHost@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.127.116.11 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.planetc.com!tornix.tornado.be!not-for-mail Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:163355 AUSROTTUNG OF 7 FEBRUARY 1997 With reference to Ausrottung of 5 February 1997 Dear Mr. McCarthy, a) Many thanks for the confirmation that "Sonderbehandlung" means execution. b) Sonderbehandlung = execution. c) Car dealers who sell too many cars will be "sonderbehandelt" = killed. d) This proves the existence of a plot to kill car dealers. e) I've got your documents on the table, Mr. McCarthy. They back me up 100%. f) The plot cannot have been 100% successful, however, since 4 million car dealers are still alive. g) Car dealers who are still alive are called "survivors". h) Use of the word "survivor", of course, proves that millions of other car dealers were in fact killed. i) It was a Japanese car manufacturer; perhaps the car dealers are being eaten as well. (See my articles on Japanese war crimes trials.) j) Is executing people and calling it "Sonderbehandlung" any worse than smashing children's hands for throwing stones, or dynamiting houses and torturing prisoners, again, for throwing stones, and calling it something else? k) If someone "denied" the reality of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, would you care? l) Would you dedicate your life to proving the reality of Israeli crimes against Palestinians just because someone "denied" them? m) No one "denies" the atrocities of the British, Americans, Soviets, Czechs, Poles, and Communists, but no one cares about them either. Their victims have no rights. What makes the Jews so special? n) If someone "denied" the reality of American crimes in Viet Nam, would you care? o) If someone "denied" the reality of Communist crimes in Viet Nam, would you care? p) It is hard to imagine anything more contemptible than using self-pity as a weapon against the world, then using that same self-pity to justify atrocities against others -- in particular, the Palestinians, and, most recently, the Irakis. Israel is a torture state, unique in the world. q) In effect, Jews demand a near-monopoly on the world's pity, expressed and payable in cold cash and enforced by criminal prosecution. Is this why Jews have been universally disliked for 3000 years? r) Is this why they have been expelled from nearly every country in Europe? s) The Old Testament contains 137 descriptions of 100% extermination committed by Jews, or Hebrews, if you prefer, on God's orders. You can count them. The only problem in counting them is deciding when one mass murder description stops and the next one begins, since they are virtually continuous. No original extermination order signed by God has ever been found, but we have the confessions of the criminals (Moses, Joshua, David, etc. etc). That this mentality is still very influential has been shown by Dr. Israel Shahak, among others. t) My question about Bugs Bunny is a serious one. u) Would you agree that Jews are far too free and easy about advocating and practising the extermination of others, in view of their sensitivity with regards to themselves? v) Since the word "Ausrottung" is used to describe our treatment of the American Indians by every German who feels himself placed even the slightest bit on the defensive by any American, why do the American Indians waste their time rain-dancing for tourists and opening gambling casinos? w) All the so-called Native Americans need to do is turn some wigwam into a "gas chamber" ["GAS CHAMBER; NEVER USED] or, possibly, [DESIGNED AS KIVA, CONVERTED INTO GAS CHAMBER], fake a few "photocopies" of "official government documents", write up a few impossible "eyewitness statements", rake in 50 billion dollars, invent the crime of "Native American Holocaust Denial", and retire to Miami beach. x) The only problem with the scheme described above is that the American Indians possess an innate sense of human dignity which the Jews have never exhibited and will never understand. y) My article THE UNRELIABILITY OF DOCUMENTS IN JEAN-CLAUDE PRESSAC'S "TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS" is posted on the Nizkor libel-site. Pressac has done the world a great service in reproducing these documents so that we can see just how worthless most of them really are. (The blueprints are authentic.) z) Don't let the French or Germans hear you refer to the gas chambers as a "straw man", since you will probably be fined or imprisoned. Faithfully, CARLOS W. PORTER 7 FEBRUARY 1997 P.S. I'll let the Detroit blacks define the White Race for you, they have a better grasp of these anthropological matters. From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Feb 23 22:20:57 EST 1998 Article: 164835 of alt.revisionism From: "CARLOS W. PORTER" Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF AUSROTTUNG - Date: 20 Feb 1998 22:43:49 GMT Organization: Tornado News Processing System Lines: 283 Message-ID: <01bd3e42$f738cb60$0a5795c2@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: 18.104.22.168 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Path: news.trends.ca!hub.org!vncnews!HSNX.wco.com!vnetnews.value.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!22.214.171.124!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.planetc.com!tornix.tornado.be!not-for-mail Xref: news.trends.ca alt.revisionism:164835 20 FEBRUARY 1998 THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF AUSROTTUNG REPLY TO NELE ABELS-LUDWIG - a) If we really want a rarified atmosphere, why not break "Ausrottung" down into its component parts? Aus = out, "Rotte", in modern German, as you well know, = troop, band, gang, horde, lot, mob, file of troops, squad, two-ship formation, pack, company, etc.; Rottenfuehrer, in the WWII German army, was, I believe, a squad leader, today, it is a foreman. Zusammenrottung (zusammen = together) = "rioting or unlawful assembly". I know it's not part of the dictionary definition, but "Ausrottung", to me, rather suggests the dispersal or expulsion of a mob of people; i.e., it is, by its very nature, very much of an abstract sort of word, not at all like Toeten, to kill, from Tod, from death. Why don't we argue about that for a month? b) Charles Dodgson, the author of Alice Through the Looking Glass, was a professor of mathematics at Christ Church, Oxford, and wrote many books on mathematics and logic. At your request, I will explain the matter again. Please pay very careful attention. c) The Knave of Hearts (that's Heinrich Himmler), writes a "poem" (the "Secret Speech", 1919-PS), in which he confesses to "stealing tarts" (exterminating the Jews). d) The "poem" is not in his handwriting (it is entirely typewritten on plain paper, without any letterhead, stamps, or handwritten markings of any kind; the handwritten notes are mostly illegible, at least to me, but they are legible where the incriminating statements ought to appear, and they are not there; the origin and authenticity of the notes and voice recording are unestablished). e) The "poem" "does not mention tarts" (it mentions Jews in 3 paragraphs out of a total of 116 pages; it speaks of the "Ausrottung der Juden", then states that the "Ausrottung der Juden" is "in the programme" -- presumably the Party programme, a public document for electoral purposes -- and then speaks of the "Ausrottung" of laziness)[!!!] It also accuses the Russians of cannibalism, saying that the average Russian is happy to put his neighbour's liver in his lunch box [!]. f) The "poem" is "not signed" (does not bear a signature). g) But the "poem" "proves he is guilty" ("proves the Holocaust"), because "otherwise he would have signed his name to it like an honest man" (i.e. we "know there was a Holocaust", so we translate "Ausrottung" as "extermination", then we turn around and use our own translation as "proof of the Holocaust"!). This is called arguing in a circle -- assuming in the premises that which is to be proven in the conclusion. h) In law, this kind of thing is called "shifting the burden of proof". For example: i) If I get arrested for burglarizing a house at 10 Oak St., they've got to prove I burglarized a house at 10 Oak St. If I break a window in a dwelling house during the nighttime and stick my hand through, OK, it's burglary, but they've got to prove it. They've even to prove it was nighttime (or getting dark). If I say, "I don't know nuthin' about, I wasn't there, and you got the wrong guy", they can't say "Aha! He didn't deny there was a burglary; that proves there was a burglary; that proves he's guilty." That's crazy. j) If I get arrested for stealing a car, nobody expects me to say, "There wasn't any stolen car"; that's crazy. And they can't say "Aha! He didn't deny there was a car theft, that proves there was a car theft, that proves he's guilty." k) If I get arrested for robbing a market with a .38 calibre revolver, nobody expects me to say, "There wasn't any robbery", that's crazy. All I can say, and all they will permit me to say, is "I don't know nuthin' about it, I wasn't there, and you got the wrong guy." They can't say, "Aha! He didn't deny there was a robbery, that proves there was a robbery, that proves he's guilty." l) No court system in the world would permit that. That didn't even happen during the witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages. It doesn't even happen in African dictatorships. But it happened at Nuremberg. m) Same thing if I get arrested for "gassing Six Million Jews". What am I supposed to say? "I don't know anything about it, and you got the wrong guy". Then the Nuremberg Tribunal, and all war crimes tribunals ever since, say, "The defendants at Nuremberg didn't deny there was a Holocaust, that proves there was a Holocaust, that proves they were guilty." That's crazy. n) In a real trial, they've got to prove the weapon is capable of doing what they claim it did. o) Let's say I get arrested for threatening some guy with a flick knife. I'm supposed to have opened it with a flick of the wrist and robbed him of five dollars. I say, "OK, it's my knife, but you can't open it that way, it's rusty." The police confiscate the knife and put in a plastic bag. Every policeman who handles that knife has to sign for it, it's called the "chain of custody of the evidence". The prosecutor has to bring that knife to court and open it with a flick of the wrist right there in the courtroom and prove that it can open that way. So the prosecutor brings it to court, and of course, it works perfectly! So we subpoena every policeman who handled the knife. We've got a right to cross-examine them. If I can get them to admit that they've altered the evidence by oiling the knife, maybe I can get acquitted. They've got to bring the evidence to court. They can't just come to court with a "photograph" of the knife and an "affidavit" from the witnesses. p) Let's say I rob a market with a .38 calibre revolver. It's a real gun, and it's loaded, but it can't shoot, see, because the firing pin's busted. Some jurisdictions make a distinction between 1st and 2nd degree robbery. First degree robbery has to involve a weapon capable of causing "death or serious injury". If the gun can't shoot, it's not first degree robbery. Everybody who handles that gun has to sign for it. To prove first degree robbery, they've got to take the gun to a police firing range and attempt to fire it. The ballistics expert has to write a report, and come to court and be cross-examined. If I can get the police to admit that they've altered the evidence by repairing the firing pin, I'm not guilty of first degree robbery. Of course, I'm still guilty of second degree robbery, but the point is, they can't just come to court with a "photograph" of the gun, and an "affidavit" from the witness; what's more, the prosecutor can't just "read" the report to the jury (particularly if the prosecutor is an armed robber himself, like the Soviets). The Americans at Nuremberg came to court with a "photograph" of a can of Zyklon, "photographs" of dead bodies, "photocopies" of documents, and a stack of "affidavits". They only called 33 witnesses in the first Nuremberg Trial. q) I've only translated one police murder report, but if a guy says, "I'm going to knock you down", and then he knocks the guy down and kills him, I'm going to translate it as "I'm going to knock you down", even if death results. I'm not going to translate it as "I'm going to kill you", because it's not there; I can only translate what is there. r) I have always said that if you could prove that there was a Holocaust of the Jews, and that the Himmler speech is authentic, then the speech would be consistent with a Holocaust of the Jews, but it doesn't work the other way around. s) If a Mexican threatens another Mexican and then kills him, you would translate the threat to prove malice aforethought; but the threat, and your translation of it, do not prove murder; it is no substitute for an inquest. t) Let's say I shoot some guy in my kitchen. My little boy hollers "Daddy shot Charlie!" We know who Daddy is, we know what "shot" means, and we know who "Charlie" is, he's the victim. OK, "Daddy shot Charlie" is an excited utterance, that's an exception to the Hearsay Rule, my neighbour can come to court and say he heard my kid holler "Daddy shot Charlie". But they've still got to do an inquest. They've got to bring the witness to court. They can't just introduce a "photograph" of the body, an "affidavit" from the neighbour, and a "photograph" of the gun. Let's say I've threatened Charlie in the past. I told him,"Ah'm a gonna kick yore ass". It's not a threat to kill him, but it proves malice, I can't say I was just cleaning the gun and it went off. They've still got to do an autopsy, ballistics tests, fingerprint tests, etc. If I shot him in the chest from 10 feet away, I might get off on manslaughter: "We were arguing, and I shot him in the heat of anger". If the angle of entry shows he was lying on the floor when I shot him, or if I shot him in the temple at point-blank range, I'll certainly be convicted of first degree murder; but they need the autopsy and ballistics tests. u) They never did any tests of any kind in any war crimes trial that I know of. The only forensic report they ever introduced at Nuremberg was USSR 54, which "proved" German guilt for the Katyn massacre. The Nuremberg defendants didn't deny the existence of the gas chambers, but they didn't deny the existence of the steam chambers either. They had a whole courtroom full of lawyers. Not one defendant, not one lawyer, ever said, "Hey, 6 weeks ago, it was 10 steam chambers at Treblinka, now it's 10 gas chambers, what's going on here?" This fact alone proves that the defendants and defence were intimidated. v) I believe that the Americans performed tests on the gas chamber at Dachau, but that they were negative; i.e., that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers knew, by November 5, 1945, that there was no gas chamber at Dachau, and, by inference, that no other gas chamber elsewhere could function in the manner alleged, but that the order was given, certainly by President Truman, to proceed with the accusation on political grounds, even though they knew perfectly well that it wasn't true. w) I believe that this order can be found at pages 000390 and 000391 of the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss, file designation 12-226-bk2, dated 5.29.1955 from GSA Postal Censorship, consisting of 1 document 5 pages, 1 document 2 pages, still secret by order of 27 June 1974 from GSA Postal Censorship; the pre-trial gas chamber exhibits follow immediately (never introduced into evidence). x) I've written about this in my articles on Dachau. I won't repeat myself. I believe the US Army Corps of Engineers went to President Truman and said, "Sir, we've found evidence that these stories of gas chambers are not true, what should we do about it?" and I believe that Truman said, in writing, "The accusation is to be made regardless", and that letter still exists in that file. They then re-wrote their Dachau "gas chamber report" and took it right over to Nuremberg and introduced it into evidence, even though they knew perfectly well it wasn't true. What kind of trial is that? y) You correctly state that I must translate "according to the meaning and the context". Do you mean the context of the 3 paragraphs in the 116 page speech, or the meaning and context of the 3 paragraphs in the Holocaust myth as a whole? z) Personally, I was presented with a purely technical translation problem, the use of the same word, always very vaguely, 3 times in the same text. In commercial translation work, if something appears likely to cause a dispute, you translate it very neutrally and very literally. If a contract says, "Shipping prices will continue to evolve", does that mean they're going up or down? I can't know; all I can say is: "Shipping prices will continue to evolve." aa) If a term appears likely to cause confusion, you use the same word every time; it doesn't matter so much what you call it, as long as you are consistent. You don't call something a "substrate" in one sentence and a "load-bearing support" two lines down, because they won't know whether you're talking about the same thing or not. bb) I translated "Ausrottung" as "extirpation" because it is vague enough to fit all three usages in the text. If this were a complaint over a commercial translation, I'd say, OK, fine, gimmie two thousand bucks and 21% VAT, and you can re-write it all you like. cc) Please provide me with a complete list of all the persons Goering is alleged to have murdered. Perhaps he beat his first wife to death with a sledge hammer? dd) I've had 6 German judges myself, and I'm glad to hear how fair and impartial they are. ee) Remember that joke about the plot to kill all the car dealers [Sonderbehandlung 5 February], "I cannot live with this inner torment, 'tis a far, far better thing I do, etc. etc. blah, blah blah"? You took it seriously; I got a big long e-mail from you asking me all how could I be a translator and not know what a "Sonderzug" is; I had to explain to you that it was a joke. I wrote to somebody else, and said, hey, you know that joke about the plot to kill all the car dealers, somebody took it seriously, people are stupid; the immediate answer was, oh, that must be Nele Abel-Ludwig, he's a nice kid, but dense as only a German can be; I must deduce that your powers of perception are somewhat limited. ff) On second thought, I think I'll give up this translatin' racket, cause I just ain't cut out for it; I really thought I could put one over on you and yer pal Jamie, translatin' "Ausrottung" as "extirpitatin', 'stead'a "'stermination", but I know when I'm done, see, I'm gonna give up this translatin' racket and lead a life of crime. Crime pays, workin' don't. Tell ya what I'll do, since yer pal Jimmie [I can hardly bring myself to call him Jamie, as that gives me the feeling that I am referring to a child], see, he can be the brains, see, on account of how he's so much smarter than me, workin's a waste a time, there's no percentage in it, so we stick up 50 gas stations, Jamie and me, but we don't kill nobody, see, then, 'cause the MO's the same, we get arrested and charged for a gas station robbery in which 2 people are killed. Well, you know me, I like a good robbery as much as the next guy, but I don't wanna get smogged for no murder, I'm a weakling, see, I can't take it, so I scrag myself in jail, see, and I leave a suicide note that says "If it wasn't for that dirty son of a bitch Jamie McCarthy, this wouldn't have happened." What I mean is, if Jamie hadn't talked me into goin' along on 50 robberies, I wouldn't be facing no double murder charge. The note is authentic, it's in my handwriting. But you know -- you KNOW -- that if the prosecutor can introduce that note into evidence (probably as a "dying declaration exception to the Hearsay Rule"), every court, and every judge, and every jury in the country, is going to take it as meaning "McCarthy is guilty" -- guilty, not just of 50 robberies, but of 2 murders as well. And he can protest all he wants. He can say, "I'm a respectable stick-up artist, I don't kill nobody, see, all I do is threaten them with guns and take their money." Ha! Ha! They'll laugh him right out of the court house and right into the smogger. They "know" he's guilty, see, 'cause they got the note to "prove" it. Hand-wrote. gg) Don't worry, Jamie; take a deep breath and it'll all be over quickly. Plop. Fzzzzzzzzz….. . hh) The question remains: why should we cry buckets over a load of smogged Jews fifty-three years ago on evidence that wouldn't convict you for robbing somebody of a five-dollar bill on the street with a rusty flick knife? Faithfully, CARLOS W. PORTER P.S. Don't forget to smoke a Camel next week for Christ.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor