wrote in message
news

The board lacks the power to regulate what music the opera company can
perform: Today's motion, if approved, would result in a letter from the
board to the opera company asking it to lessen its focus on Wagner by
including works by other composers and offering lectures focusing on
Wagner's openly anti-Semitic views.

The arrogance of some Jews is amazing.

This is an interesting thought exercise. The facts against Wagner seem to
be that:

a)He had anti-Semitic views.

b)He did not commit crimes against Jews directly. (Actually, in his favor.)

c)The Holocaust did occur. (This aggravates the situation at a visceral
level because this type of mass murder is a very emotional issue.)

I do know that medical data obtained using unacceptable involuntary medical
experiments during that era have essentially been excluded.

The question of the "exclusion" of the music of someone who as best I know
didn't actually commit crimes is an interesting one. (c) changes all the
rules, due to the horrific magnitude of the crimes.

It is also relevant that Wagner's death predated the Holocaust, so his
remarks originally existed in a context that did not include the Holocaust.
He might not have made the remarks post-1945. So, literally, the original
context for interpreting the severity and appropriateness of the remarks is
gone.

An author with anti-black views might face similar scrutiny ...

Datesfat

Datesfat Chicks wrote
wrote

The board lacks the power to regulate what music the opera company
can perform: Today's motion, if approved, would result in a letter
from the board to the opera company asking it to lessen its focus
on Wagner by including works by other composers and offering
lectures focusing on Wagner's openly anti-Semitic views.

The arrogance of some Jews is amazing.

This is an interesting thought exercise. The facts against Wagner seem to be that:

a)He had anti-Semitic views.

He wasnt alone in that.

b)He did not commit crimes against Jews directly. (Actually, in his favor.)

c)The Holocaust did occur. (This aggravates the situation at a visceral level because this type of mass murder is a
very emotional issue.)

I do know that medical data obtained using unacceptable involuntary
medical experiments during that era have essentially been excluded.

No it hasnt.

The question of the "exclusion" of the music

No one is proposing that.

of someone who as best I know didn't actually commit crimes is an interesting one. (c) changes all the rules, due to
the horrific magnitude of the crimes.

It is also relevant that Wagner's death predated the Holocaust, so his remarks originally existed in a context that
did not include the Holocaust. He might not have made the remarks post-1945. So, literally, the original context for
interpreting the severity and
appropriateness of the remarks is gone.

An author with anti-black views might face similar scrutiny ...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

I do know that medical data obtained using unacceptable involuntary
medical experiments during that era have essentially been excluded.

No it hasnt.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

QUOTE: Pozos' plan to republish the Nazi data in the New England Journal of
Medicine was flatly vetoed by the Journal's editor, Doctor Arnold Relman.15
Relman's refusal to publish Nazi data along with Pozos' comments was
understandable given the source of the Nazi data and the way it was
obtained.

My understanding--and I'm not much of an Internet searcher--is that
consensus of the medical community was to exclude it. I didn't even know it
was available.

I clearly don't understand the issue very well ... please let me know where
I'm wrong.

The question of the "exclusion" of the music

No one is proposing that.

Not in the same way, no. But censorship is nearly equivalent to exclusion
in spirit.

Datesfat

Datesfat Chicks wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I do know that medical data obtained using unacceptable involuntary
medical experiments during that era have essentially been excluded.

No it hasnt.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

QUOTE: Pozos' plan to republish the Nazi data in the New England
Journal of Medicine was flatly vetoed by the Journal's editor, Doctor
Arnold Relman.15 Relman's refusal to publish Nazi data along with
Pozos' comments was understandable given the source of the Nazi data and the way it was obtained.

Says nothing useful about the rest of the medical data that hasnt been excluded.

My understanding--and I'm not much of an Internet searcher--
is that consensus of the medical community was to exclude it.

You're wrong.

I didn't even know it was available.

Corse it is.

I clearly don't understand the issue very well ... please let me know where I'm wrong.

Basically it hasnt been excluded.

The question of the "exclusion" of the music

No one is proposing that.

Not in the same way, no. But censorship is nearly equivalent to exclusion in spirit.

Nope. No one is even proposing all of Wagner's work be
burnt etc or even that it should no longer be buyable either.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Datesfat Chicks wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I do know that medical data obtained using unacceptable involuntary
medical experiments during that era have essentially been excluded.

No it hasnt.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

QUOTE: Pozos' plan to republish the Nazi data in the New England
Journal of Medicine was flatly vetoed by the Journal's editor, Doctor
Arnold Relman.15 Relman's refusal to publish Nazi data along with
Pozos' comments was understandable given the source of the Nazi data and
the way it was obtained.

Says nothing useful about the rest of the medical data that hasnt been
excluded.

My understanding--and I'm not much of an Internet searcher--
is that consensus of the medical community was to exclude it.

You're wrong.

I didn't even know it was available.

Corse it is.

I clearly don't understand the issue very well ... please let me know
where I'm wrong.

Basically it hasnt been excluded.

The question of the "exclusion" of the music

No one is proposing that.

Not in the same way, no. But censorship is nearly equivalent to
exclusion in spirit.

Nope. No one is even proposing all of Wagner's work be
burnt etc or even that it should no longer be buyable either.



The medical data is available. Hard to find, and is extremely frowned upon
to use or quote. Probably enough to derail a career. Which pretty much
excludes it use.

Calif Bill wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Datesfat Chicks wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I do know that medical data obtained using unacceptable involuntary medical experiments during that era have
essentially been excluded.

No it hasnt.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

QUOTE: Pozos' plan to republish the Nazi data in the New England
Journal of Medicine was flatly vetoed by the Journal's editor,
Doctor Arnold Relman.15 Relman's refusal to publish Nazi data along
with Pozos' comments was understandable given the source of the
Nazi data and the way it was obtained.

Says nothing useful about the rest of the medical data that hasnt been excluded.

My understanding--and I'm not much of an Internet searcher--
is that consensus of the medical community was to exclude it.

You're wrong.

I didn't even know it was available.

Corse it is.

I clearly don't understand the issue very well ... please let me know where I'm wrong.

Basically it hasnt been excluded.

The question of the "exclusion" of the music

No one is proposing that.

Not in the same way, no. But censorship is nearly equivalent to exclusion in spirit.

Nope. No one is even proposing all of Wagner's work be
burnt etc or even that it should no longer be buyable either.

The medical data is available.

Correct.

Hard to find,

Nope.

and is extremely frowned upon to use or quote.

Wrong.

Probably enough to derail a career.

Clearly hasnt derailed Pozos'

Which pretty much excludes it use.

Like hell it does.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:48:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

You're wrong.

Corse it is.

Correct.,

Nope.

Wrong.

Like hell it does.

I don't have a horse in this race either way, but you're pretty loose
with those laconic answers. Do you have any evidence to back up your
assertions? Or can you expand on those answers to convince someone
with an open mind who doesn't just take "wrong" as a fact?

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

Calif Bill wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Datesfat Chicks wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I do know that medical data obtained using unacceptable
involuntary medical experiments during that era have essentially
been excluded.

No it hasnt.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

QUOTE: Pozos' plan to republish the Nazi data in the New England
Journal of Medicine was flatly vetoed by the Journal's editor,
Doctor Arnold Relman.15 Relman's refusal to publish Nazi data along
with Pozos' comments was understandable given the source of the
Nazi data and the way it was obtained.

Says nothing useful about the rest of the medical data that hasnt
been excluded.

My understanding--and I'm not much of an Internet searcher--
is that consensus of the medical community was to exclude it.

You're wrong.

I didn't even know it was available.

Corse it is.

I clearly don't understand the issue very well ... please let me
know where I'm wrong.

Basically it hasnt been excluded.

The question of the "exclusion" of the music

No one is proposing that.

Not in the same way, no. But censorship is nearly equivalent to
exclusion in spirit.

Nope. No one is even proposing all of Wagner's work be
burnt etc or even that it should no longer be buyable either.



The medical data is available. Hard to find, and is extremely
frowned upon to use or quote. Probably enough to derail a career.
Which pretty much excludes it use.

In any case, the objection to the medical data is that it was obtained by
using concentration camp inmates in ways that are considered to be inhumane.
Given that Wagner died 6 years before Hitler was born, it's difficult to see
how that particular objection could apply to him.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Datesfat Chicks wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I do know that medical data obtained using unacceptable
involuntary medical experiments during that era have essentially
been excluded.

No it hasnt.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

QUOTE: Pozos' plan to republish the Nazi data in the New England
Journal of Medicine was flatly vetoed by the Journal's editor,
Doctor Arnold Relman.15 Relman's refusal to publish Nazi data along
with Pozos' comments was understandable given the source of the
Nazi data and the way it was obtained.

Says nothing useful about the rest of the medical data that hasnt
been excluded.

My understanding--and I'm not much of an Internet searcher--
is that consensus of the medical community was to exclude it.

You're wrong.

I didn't even know it was available.

Corse it is.

I clearly don't understand the issue very well ... please let me
know where I'm wrong.

Basically it hasnt been excluded.

The question of the "exclusion" of the music

No one is proposing that.

Not in the same way, no. But censorship is nearly equivalent to
exclusion in spirit.

Nope. No one is even proposing all of Wagner's work be
burnt etc or even that it should no longer be buyable either.



The medical data is available. Hard to find, and is extremely
frowned upon to use or quote. Probably enough to derail a career.
Which pretty much excludes it use.

In any case, the objection to the medical data is that it was obtained by
using concentration camp inmates in ways that are considered to be
inhumane.
Given that Wagner died 6 years before Hitler was born, it's difficult to
see
how that particular objection could apply to him.


I was only expounding on the bio information from the viewpoint of an
engineer in the bioengineering field. Wagner "The ride of the Valkyries"
is great. Sort of Apocalypse Now music.