As for me not replying to you, the rest of my life does not come to a halt every time you post something on this site. (bruce)
the sentence includes the suggestion, i might be an person who suspects the world 2 stand still, when he appears. thats again insensitive nonsense beside the point.
u choosed to reply 2me, knowing, that it will become more than 1 reply, and u was able 2 reply within minutes 2 my critic above. so simply make up ur mind, if u have the time and interest, to have an continued discussion.
i think u know, that i started here as an new sympathisant, after i did come 2 know sacha in an debate of another website. quickly i read most of the stuff here and started 2 write 2 him bout the points i disagreed with. (there was much i agreed with, but this we dont need 2 discuss, right?)but he replied only once bout this points; iam still waiting his reply 2my reply; since many weeks he promised that weekly 4 each coming week, b4 he didnt reply at all since 2 weeks or so, what is mighty disapointing. i thought, maybe he told u, to continue the discussion with me. i guess, i was wrong. anyway i think, its no way 2 handle new people, to tell "this we all discussed b4". i studied almost all of ur stuff and did, 4 example, not find an article bout ramboillet. if i may have overlooked something, than thats no scandal. i think, if the AWL has no one to have an concentrated debate 4 some weeks with some1 new, than my "hysterical" future-prognosis above may become very valid.
@carolan: i simply overlooked, that the lenght of an article can also be an reason 4 removing (but nowhere its said, how long it exactly can be; i saw some very long replies!) and u make an whole "repertoire" of wrong accusings out of it, which i seem 2 have and fire it up whenever i like. so, the hysteria is all urs. cause i dont have any fixed repertoire, my reply was obvious very quick and spomtaneus- as usual. and from my experience with other groups i had any right, to suspect what i did suspect (censorship), AND ALSO because my first small critic was removed too without any explaination. only after i wrote the sharp, "hysterical" critic, i earned an reply. so obviously it was necessary! (just a little logic). AND, if it was bout lenght only and not about content, u cud also have offered me, to post only an excerpt from the article, isnt it?
3. about b. being so annoyed, that i saw no omnipotence here, 2reply everything:
on many an article here, i posted an short, simple and kind quest, which never was answered. for example: at the article bout "the pope&the red army", where it was said, that the soldiers of the red army had a "license" to rape and act like conquerors, while the nice americans hanged their raping soldiers, i posted the following comment:
a) the red army, however stalinist, did free europe from the nazis, arrived in berlin few days b4 the americans &opened the concentration camps
b) i guess, soldiers of all armys does rape
c) as far as i know, the red army also had an law, to execute raping soldiers
-so i kindly asked the author, where he has the information from, that they had a licence to rape
he never replied. so, is it nasty 2 assume, that the author might be unable, to back it up, what he said? just a little logic! if this is annoying, than i cant help it.