Am 15.10.2023 um 22:09 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:55:31?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago,
>>> Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization
>>> to plagiarize an entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before
>>> his birth.
>>>
>>> At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his
>>> work by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré
>>> within 1 YEAR span of time.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
>>>
>>> BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other
>>> pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000
>>> years before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in
>>> particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other
>>> technologies, like how to make paper, powder, etc.
>>>
>>> Western science is a fucking joke.

I personally think, there exist a secret science, too, which is
actually valid and well developed.

What you call 'Western science' is just the stupidity fed to the masses,
which prevents them from thinking themselves.

This 'dual of real science' is in general: overly difficult, too
materialistic, infiltrated with bullshit and pseudo-religious believes.

The real science is only tought, if you have secrecy clearance and
signed a non-disclosure agreement.

Common mortals only get that 'bad stuff', what prevents them from making
unwanted discoveries.

....

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[nettiquette misbehaviour]

Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,

Jan

dementia hit Physfitfreak 𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵:

>> lol, 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 my ass. The gay america still 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗿𝘀,
>> back in their garden.
>
> Got your "engineer" ass in one glance, didn't I. You don't know how you

you fucking uneducated unskilled imbecile. You don't even know what
𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗮 is. The 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 ruled EU and US my ass.

𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗘𝗨-𝗱𝗲𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗢𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮
The prime minister of the EU state has snubbed Western attempts to isolate
Russia diplomatically
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/585131-putin-orban-beijing-forum/

“unprovoked Russian aggression.” ... Err that's kinda like ...
"Intelligent Western politicians" neither are true.

Hungary has 2 𝗯𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆_𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲s setup ready for 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗘𝗩_𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 that is
operating in Hungary, and it's where the sales of EV exporting to the rest
of europe, Hungary 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿, also there is 𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 factory
there. lol

BRICS+ now controls 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲 than G7. Things will change
fast in the next 10 years. Be on the right side of history or get left
behind on 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽.

Orban will not be US lapdog never will be. He stands firmly against
warmongers.

While Putin is in China, 𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹. Israel is the real
𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁, just like China is the real superpower in the East.

the fucking west fucked their asses in ukurina. Fucking capitalist
imbeciles. People thought they had more brain. They have less, not more.

On 10/17/2023 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>
> Well, I actually like this metaphor
>

You would.

Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> [nettiquette misbehaviour]
>
> Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,

You mean your crap?

Quote:

"
Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.

Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."

Well, maybe I should try:

'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
with each other.

The relation between relativity and Marxism is actually beyond my
intellectual horizon.

(Hope this is a good reply)

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> > [nettiquette misbehaviour]
> >
> > Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
>
> You mean your crap?

The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
-then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
(and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.

> Quote:
>
> "
> Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
> It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
>
> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
>
>
> Well, maybe I should try:
>
> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
> with each other.

It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
Your command of English falls short of what is needed here.
And you also seem to be somewhat humour-impaired.

> The relation between relativity and Marxism is actually beyond my
> intellectual horizon.
>
> (Hope this is a good reply)

Yes, fine, now you adress my point.
The relation is simple: 20th century Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, etc.
have generally agreed with the Nazis that relativity must be wrong.
(because they were absolutely right about their things,
and they considerd being 'relative' a form of treason)

Being branded 'a relativist' in those parts
could land you in a concentration camp.
(or euphemistically, a reeducation camp)

Jan

Anecdote: Stalin didn't trust those scientists with their relativity at
all. He was calmed down by the KGB chief, Beria, who said:
"Let them do their thing first, we can always shoot them afterwards."
Stalin didn't trust the army and the generals,
so the KGB had been given control of the nuclear weapons program.

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 10:53:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> The relation is simple: 20th century Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, etc.
> have generally agreed with the Nazis that relativity must be wrong.

A lie. Of course. Like every fanatic idiot you're
trying to rewrite the history. Comerade Lenin
himself has marked your idiot guru as great
modern thinker.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> The relation between relativity and Marxism is actually beyond my
> intellectual horizon. (Hope this is a good reply)

Both are WESTERN CRIMINALS. BOTH. Biden a depleted uraniun and a cluster
bomb killer, who bombed by NATO and destroyed "peacefully" NordStream 1&2,
a Jesuit criminal and Netanyahu are MURDERER. Both are terrorists and
SERIAL KILLERS.

B𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸
khazar bidon vouched for Israeli innocence in the deadly strike
https://r%74.com/news/585237-biden-hospital-israel-blame/

Criminals their children like cocaine

In the picture: two corrupt war criminals!!

deeply saddened and outraged” by the incident, which has claimed over 500
lives.. lying SOB...

Usually this insane fellow used to blame evil Putin for everything, now he
switched on Palestinians, is this guy not only lost his mind he also lost
his dignity.

the more reason for ICC to capture them both

Biden is 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. In 2021, Joe Biden
blocked 𝗮𝗹𝗹 3 𝗨𝗡 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲 in Israel i.e. he deliberately
prolonged the bombing, death and destruction inflicted on Gaza by the
brutal Israeli 𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲. Utterly shameful but no surprise. Tel Aviv
thanked Biden for blocking UN statement calling for ceasefire. It's mutual
backscratching. Joe Biden said: “I think it’s 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽...
𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹 ...It is the best $3 billion investment we
make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼
𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻.” i.e. mutual back-
scratching between relentless U.S. empire-building agenda and the Israeli
expansionist agenda.

Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> [nettiquette misbehaviour]
>>>
>>> Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
>>
>> You mean your crap?
>
> The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
> -then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
> (and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
> Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.
>
>> Quote:
>>
>> "
>> Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
>> It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
>>
>> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
>>
>>
>> Well, maybe I should try:
>>
>> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
>> with each other.
>
> It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.

I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>> [nettiquette misbehaviour]
> >>>
> >>> Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
> >>
> >> You mean your crap?
> >
> > The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
> > -then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
> > (and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
> > Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.
> >
> >> Quote:
> >>
> >> "
> >> Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
> >> It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
> >>
> >> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
> >> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, maybe I should try:
> >>
> >> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
> >> with each other.
> >
> > It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
>
> I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
> all-time-record for mass murder.

Your English needs more work,

Jan

Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> [nettiquette misbehaviour]
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
>>>>
>>>> You mean your crap?
>>>
>>> The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
>>> -then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
>>> (and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
>>> Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.
>>>
>>>> Quote:
>>>>
>>>> "
>>>> Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
>>>> It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
>>>>
>>>> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, maybe I should try:
>>>>
>>>> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
>>>> with each other.
>>>
>>> It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
>>
>> I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
>> all-time-record for mass murder.
>
> Your English needs more work,
Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
Anyhow:

Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

"In 1958, after China's first five-year plan, Mao called for "grassroots
socialism" in order to accelerate his plans for turning China into a
modern industrialized state. In this spirit, Mao launched the Great Leap
Forward, established people's communes in the countryside, and began the
mass mobilization of the people into collectives. Many communities were
assigned production of a single commodity—steel. Mao vowed to increase
agricultural production to twice that of 1957 levels.[11]

The Great Leap was an economic failure. Many uneducated farmers were
pulled from farming and harvesting and instead instructed to produce
steel on a massive scale, partially relying on backyard furnaces to
achieve the production targets set by local cadres. The steel produced
was of low quality and mostly useless. The Great Leap reduced harvest
sizes and led to a decline in the production of most goods except
substandard pig iron and steel. Furthermore, local authorities
frequently exaggerated production numbers, hiding and intensifying the
problem for several years.[12][13]: 25–30 

In the meantime, chaos in the collectives, bad weather, and exports of
food necessary to secure hard currency resulted in the Great Chinese
Famine. Food was in desperate shortage, and production fell
dramatically. The famine caused the deaths of more than 30 million
people, particularly in the more impoverished inland regions.[14] "

Overall, the head-count of Mao was almost a hundred million, what is a
historical record.

So, you could not possibly call Mao a nice guy.

Next in the list of shitheads came 'Stalin', who slaughtered a little less.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>> [nettiquette misbehaviour]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
> >>>>
> >>>> You mean your crap?
> >>>
> >>> The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
> >>> -then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
> >>> (and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
> >>> Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.
> >>>
> >>>> Quote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "
> >>>> Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
> >>>> It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
> >>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, maybe I should try:
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
> >>>> with each other.
> >>>
> >>> It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
> >>
> >> I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
> >> all-time-record for mass murder.
> >
> > Your English needs more work,
> Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.

For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.

> Anyhow:
>
> Read this
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
[snip]
-I- should read things because -you- are incompetent in English?

> So, you could not possibly call Mao a nice guy.

If you were only a little more competent in English
you would have seen that I never did.

Jan

--
How does this strike you? A well-brought-up Canadian teenage girl, of
Chinese ancestry, becomes starry-eyed over Mao Zedong and resolves to
visit mainland China at all costs. She gets her wish. Not only does she
visit, she manages to stay on as a student and even do physical labor,
so great is her determination to be a -good Maoist- [emp. jjl] in a
Maoist paradise, where the workers always sing, everyone is equal, and
nobody ever goes without a meal. [she goes there, desillusionment next]
(review of: Red China Blues_ My Long March from Mao to Now, by Jan Wong)

On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, maybe I should try:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
>>>> all-time-record for mass murder.
>>>
>>> Your English needs more work,

>> Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
>
> For your information, you are failing.
> There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
> In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
> One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
> so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
>
That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions,
which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to
learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the meaning
of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase contradictory.

On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:

> On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
>>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, maybe I should try:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
>>>>> all-time-record for mass murder.
>>>>
>>>> Your English needs more work,
>
>>> Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
>>
>> For your information, you are failing.
>> There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
>> In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
>> One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
>> so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
>>
> That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions,
> which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to
> learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
> believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
> meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
> contradictory.

Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point
"Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people
during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly
they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
Forward. To take a more recent example (on a much smaller scale), Anne
Sacoolas didn't murder Harry Dunn: he died as a result of her
incompetence and inattention.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On October 21, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> How does this strike you? A well-brought-up Canadian teenage girl, of
> Chinese ancestry, becomes starry-eyed over Mao Zedong and resolves to
> visit mainland China at all costs. She gets her wish. Not only does she
> visit, she manages to stay on as a student and even do physical labor,
> so great is her determination to be a -good Maoist- [emp. jjl] in a
> Maoist paradise, where the workers always sing, everyone is equal, and
> nobody ever goes without a meal. [she goes there, desillusionment next]
> (review of: Red China Blues_ My Long March from Mao to Now, by Jan Wong)

Elon Musk's "daughter" is a Maoist convert.
("she" was born "he")

--
Rich

On October 21, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> "Mao holds actually the (current) all-time-record for mass murder," it is
> certainly true that many people
> during Mao's time, but most of deaths cannot be called murder.

Manslaughter, then. He's one of the top three record holders, at least.

Under U.S. law, he's guilty of murder in the third degree. I don't know
if that category exists in Europe.

--
Rich

On October 21, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Not only does she visit, she manages to stay on as a student and even
> do physical labor, so great is her determination to be a -good Maoist- in a
> Maoist paradise, where the workers always sing, everyone is equal, and
> nobody ever goes without a meal.

Maoist paradise:
https://www.cardcow.com/images/set44/card00184_fr.jpg

Everyone is equal, everyone works physical labor, everyone is guaranteed
three meals and a roof. Not sure about singing -

Also the dream of a large portion of the U.S. professiorate -
currently cheering Hamas -

--
Rich

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
>
> > On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
> >>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian
> >>>>>>> science."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, maybe I should try:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
> >>>>>>> with each other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
> >>>>> all-time-record for mass murder.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your English needs more work,
> >
> >>> Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
> >>
> >> For your information, you are failing.
> >> There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
> >> In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
> >> One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
> >> so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
> >>
> > That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions,
> > which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to
> > learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
> > believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
> > meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
> > contradictory.
>
> Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point
> "Mao holds actually the (current)
> all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people
> during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly
> they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
> Forward.

And even that is questionable.
Consider the situation when Mao took power:
China had a huge and rapidly growing population,
and almost all of that population was engaged in highly labor-intensive
and low-productivity agriculture.
Industial production was next to nothing by comparison.
(and most of what little there had been before WWII
was destroyed by the Japanese, who also killed off the skilled labour)
On top of the miseries of WWII, which was as bad as WWII in the West,
they had a civil war following it.
The nearly complete boycot of the USA and its allies
after the civil war was over didn't help either.
Starvation was already the rule in much of China before Mao took over.
Mao's China was obviously in a non-sustainable situation,
and something drastic had to be done about it.

Let those who say 'mass murder' explain
what -they- would have done about it,
given the disastrous situation the country was in,
and how that would have worked out better.

The communist party (and not just Mao personally) no doubt
made some bad mistakes in managing the transition,
but not with the intention of killing off masses of people.
It could at worst be a charge of mass manslaughter through incompetence.

As for the collective madness aspects: was it really much worse
than the partisan infighting that we are seeing nowadays in the US of A?
The only redeeming aspect of it is that they have two crazy parties
insted of just one. (but the communist party had its factions too)

> To take a more recent example (on a much smaller scale), Anne
> Sacoolas didn't murder Harry Dunn: he died as a result of her
> incompetence and inattention.

Indeed, an unfortunate accident. I have done just the same,
but I was lucky in that no motorcyclist was coming.

This is one of the most dangerous situations in driving in England:
coming out of an hotel parking lot, and turning onto the public road.
(and remembering in time to start driving on the left)

Jan

RichD wrote:

> On October 21, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Not only does she visit, she manages to stay on as a student and even
>> do physical labor, so great is her determination to be a -good Maoist-
>> in a Maoist paradise, where the workers always sing, everyone is equal,
>> and nobody ever goes without a meal.
>
> Maoist paradise: https://www.cardcow.com/images/set44/card00184_fr.jpg
> Everyone is equal, everyone works physical labor, everyone is guaranteed
> three meals and a roof. Not sure about singing -
> Also the dream of a large portion of the U.S. professiorate -
> currently cheering Hamas -

if you want to takeover the world, make it gently.

On 2023-10-22 15:45:28 +0000, Dono. said:

> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:38:49 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> And even that is questionable.
>
> Your leftism is showing. Once again.

Your My-country-right-or-wrongism is showing again.

Did you consider the specific points that Jan made? In which did you
think he was mistaken?

More generally, do you think the examples of the interference of the
USA in the affairs of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were tremendous
successes?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Am 22.10.2023 um 10:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
>>>>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian
>>>>>>>>> science."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, maybe I should try:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
>>>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
>>>>>>> all-time-record for mass murder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your English needs more work,
>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
>>>>
>>>> For your information, you are failing.
>>>> There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
>>>> In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
>>>> One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
>>>> so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
>>>>
>>> That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions,
>>> which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to
>>> learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
>>> believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
>>> meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
>>> contradictory.
>>
>> Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point
>> "Mao holds actually the (current)
>> all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people
>> during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly
>> they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
>> Forward.
>
> And even that is questionable.
> Consider the situation when Mao took power:
> China had a huge and rapidly growing population,
> and almost all of that population was engaged in highly labor-intensive
> and low-productivity agriculture.
> Industial production was next to nothing by comparison.
> (and most of what little there had been before WWII
> was destroyed by the Japanese, who also killed off the skilled labour)
> On top of the miseries of WWII, which was as bad as WWII in the West,
> they had a civil war following it.
> The nearly complete boycot of the USA and its allies
> after the civil war was over didn't help either.
> Starvation was already the rule in much of China before Mao took over.
> Mao's China was obviously in a non-sustainable situation,
> and something drastic had to be done about it.
>
> Let those who say 'mass murder' explain
> what -they- would have done about it,
> given the disastrous situation the country was in,
> and how that would have worked out better.

Well, maybe you are right.

But as far as I can tell, the Soviet Shithead named (himself) 'Stalin'
had the intention to kill.

He stole the crops in the Ukraine with the intention to starve the
Ukrainians to death.

Or :soldiers were executed, who refused to fight and moved backwards,
when German tanks approached and they didn't even had a gun.

He also killed returning prisoners (Soviet citicens!) of war, after the
British returned them by force in Bleiburg to the Soviets.

Masses of people were murdered in the Gulags for political reason and
without any reason at all and many of them at the order of the dictator.

Also most of the refugees from Germany were killed, who fleed Nazi
Germany and took refuge in Moscow.

Also most of the German prisoners of war were killed after WWII.

Latvia for instance had a population of 4 million and about 800,000 died
in the prisons in Siberia.

And that goes an on and on and on.

So possibly Stalin was worse than Mao (at least a little).

TH

On 2023-10-23 06:36:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 22.10.2023 um 10:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
>>>>>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian
>>>>>>>>>> science."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, maybe I should try:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
>>>>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
>>>>>>>> all-time-record for mass murder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your English needs more work,
>>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> For your information, you are failing.
>>>>> There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
>>>>> In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
>>>>> One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
>>>>> so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
>>>>>
>>>> That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions,
>>>> which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to
>>>> learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
>>>> believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
>>>> meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
>>>> contradictory.
>>>
>>> Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point
>>> "Mao holds actually the (current)
>>> all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people
>>> during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly
>>> they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
>>> Forward.
>>
>> And even that is questionable.
>> Consider the situation when Mao took power:
>> China had a huge and rapidly growing population,
>> and almost all of that population was engaged in highly labor-intensive
>> and low-productivity agriculture.
>> Industial production was next to nothing by comparison.
>> (and most of what little there had been before WWII
>> was destroyed by the Japanese, who also killed off the skilled labour)
>> On top of the miseries of WWII, which was as bad as WWII in the West,
>> they had a civil war following it.
>> The nearly complete boycot of the USA and its allies
>> after the civil war was over didn't help either.
>> Starvation was already the rule in much of China before Mao took over.
>> Mao's China was obviously in a non-sustainable situation,
>> and something drastic had to be done about it.
>>
>> Let those who say 'mass murder' explain
>> what -they- would have done about it,
>> given the disastrous situation the country was in,
>> and how that would have worked out better.
>
>
> Well, maybe you are right.
>
> But as far as I can tell, the Soviet Shithead named (himself) 'Stalin'
> had the intention to kill.

Not the same person as Mao, so what does your diatribe have to do with
Jan's points?

As for Stalin, maybe he wanted to practise Christian love as taught to
him during his five years in a seminary training to be a priest. You
can call him Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili if you like (and don't
care about being understood) but Stalin is easier to say and what
everyone does say.
>
> He stole the crops in the Ukraine with the intention to starve the
> Ukrainians to death.
>
> Or :soldiers were executed, who refused to fight and moved backwards,
> when German tanks approached and they didn't even had a gun.
>
> He also killed returning prisoners (Soviet citicens!) of war, after the
> British returned them by force in Bleiburg to the Soviets.
>
> Masses of people were murdered in the Gulags for political reason and
> without any reason at all and many of them at the order of the dictator.
>
> Also most of the refugees from Germany were killed, who fleed Nazi
> Germany and took refuge in Moscow.
>
> Also most of the German prisoners of war were killed after WWII.
>
> Latvia for instance had a population of 4 million and about 800,000
> died in the prisons in Siberia.
>
> And that goes an on and on and on.
>
> So possibly Stalin was worse than Mao (at least a little).
>
>
> TH

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-10-22 15:45:28 +0000, Dono. said:
[missing on my server, probably Google]
> > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:38:49?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> >> And even that is questionable.
> >
> > Your leftism is showing. Once again.
>
> Your My-country-right-or-wrongism is showing again.

No idea what Dono. wrote, since it is absent on my server.
The usual kind of agressive content-free garbage, I guess.

> Did you consider the specific points that Jan made? In which did you
> think he was mistaken?

> More generally, do you think the examples of the interference of the
> USA in the affairs of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were tremendous
> successes?

China could have been more of a succes, if those in charge in Washington
had listened to General Joseph 'Vinegar Joe' Stillwell.
(who was their commander in chief there)

He told them that Chiang Kai-shek didn't really control much of the
country, that he was thoroughly corrupt,
that he refused to fight the Japanese,
and that he used the lend-lease materials to fight Mao instead of Japan.

So Stillwell was relieved of his command,
and the USA drove Mao into the arms of Stalin.
Mao went on to win the Chinese civil war,
and the USA went on to bemoan the 'Loss of China'
as a national trauma. (as if it had been their China to begin with)
So next they had Senator Joe McCarthy blaming it all
on a 'communist plot'.

Things might have gone better...

Jan

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 9:18:22 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Did you consider the specific points that Jan made? In which did you
> think he was mistaken?
>

Your comrade made an equivalence between fascist - maoist China and US. Have you missed that, comrade Athel? You suffer from the deep-rooted leftard inability to comprehend.

> More generally, do you think the examples of the interference of the
> USA in the affairs of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were tremendous
> successes?
Nothing to do with US intervention. Everything to do with producing lefturd equivalences.

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:33:27 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2023-10-22 15:45:28 +0000, Dono. said:
> [missing on my server, probably Google]
> > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:38:49?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > >> And even that is questionable.
> > >
> > > Your leftism is showing. Once again.
> >
> > Your My-country-right-or-wrongism is showing again.
> No idea what Dono. wrote, since it is absent on my server.
> The usual kind of agressive content-free garbage, I guess.
> > Did you consider the specific points that Jan made? In which did you
> > think he was mistaken?
>
>
> > More generally, do you think the examples of the interference of the
> > USA in the affairs of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were tremendous
> > successes?
> China could have been more of a succes, if those in charge in Washington
> had listened to General Joseph 'Vinegar Joe' Stillwell.
> (who was their commander in chief there)
>
> He told them that Chiang Kai-shek didn't really control much of the
> country, that he was thoroughly corrupt,
> that he refused to fight the Japanese,
> and that he used the lend-lease materials to fight Mao instead of Japan.
>
> So Stillwell was relieved of his command,
> and the USA drove Mao into the arms of Stalin.
> Mao went on to win the Chinese civil war,
> and the USA went on to bemoan the 'Loss of China'
> as a national trauma. (as if it had been their China to begin with)
> So next they had Senator Joe McCarthy blaming it all
> on a 'communist plot'.
>
> Things might have gone better...
>
> Jan

You conveniently forget that if it weren't for US, you and comrade Athel would be singing "Sig Heil". (as it is, you are both singing "Allah Akbaru")..