This is pretty funny. It's a collection of photographs
of restaurant facades with particularly bad names.

http://www.oddee.com/item_96733.aspx

Who would have thought of naming a restaurant after
Adolf Hitler?

John wrote:

> I would patrojnize a place called Redrum Burger, just on principle!
>
> At least once!

The burgers there are actually quite good. For those following a low-fat
diet they offer an ostrich burger which is excellent.

Bob

On Jul 10, 9:40*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> John wrote:
> > I would patrojnize a place called Redrum Burger, just on principle!
>
> > At least once!
>
> The burgers there are actually quite good. For those following a low-fat
> diet they offer an ostrich burger which is excellent.

I don't like ostrich meat. It reminds me of chicken gizzard. I've
had it fron different sources, and I had the same reaction.
>
> Bob

--Bryan

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> This is pretty funny. It's a collection of photographs
> of restaurant facades with particularly bad names.
>
> http://www.oddee.com/item_96733.aspx
>
> Who would have thought of naming a restaurant after
> Adolf Hitler?

We have a restaurant here by the name of Crapitto's!

http://www.crapittos.com/

Mark Thorson > wrote in :

> Who would have thought of naming a restaurant after
> Adolf Hitler?

That is odd, but given that the restaurant is in Mumbai, it may have been
the association with the swastika (which goes back to the Neolithic period
and is a symbol of good things in Hinduism), rather than Hitler himself,
which is definitely an unfortunate association.

"The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit word svastika, meaning any
lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and
things to denote good luck. It is composed of su-, meaning "good, well" and
asti, a verbal abstract to the root as "to be" (cognate with the Romance
copula, coming ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *h1es-); svasti
thus means "well-being." The suffix -ka either forms a diminutive or
intensifies the verbal meaning, and svastika might thus be translated
literally as "that which is associated with well-being," corresponding to
"lucky charm" or "thing that is auspicious."

Of course, this symbol of goodness has been severely damaged by the
untalented Austrian housepainter.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michel Boucher wrote:
> Mark Thorson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Who would have thought of naming a restaurant after
>> Adolf Hitler?
>
> That is odd, but given that the restaurant is in Mumbai, it may have been
> the association with the swastika (which goes back to the Neolithic
> period and is a symbol of good things in Hinduism), rather than Hitler
> himself, which is definitely an unfortunate association.
>
Except that the Indian swastika usually faces in the other direction.

> "The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit word svastika, meaning
> any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons
> and things to denote good luck. It is composed of su-, meaning "good,
> well" and asti, a verbal abstract to the root as "to be" (cognate with
> the Romance copula, coming ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root
> *h1es-); svasti thus means "well-being." The suffix -ka either forms a
> diminutive or intensifies the verbal meaning, and svastika might thus be
> translated literally as "that which is associated with well-being,"
> corresponding to "lucky charm" or "thing that is auspicious."
>
> Of course, this symbol of goodness has been severely damaged by the
> untalented Austrian housepainter.

Housepainter ? Hmmmm ...

The wrong-facing swastika was the emblem of a Swedish airline.
Goering married the daughter of the owner ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
:

>> That is odd, but given that the restaurant is in Mumbai, it may have
>> been the association with the swastika (which goes back to the
>> Neolithic period and is a symbol of good things in Hinduism), rather
>> than Hitler himself, which is definitely an unfortunate association.
>>
> Except that the Indian swastika usually faces in the other direction.

The swastika can face in any direction. It has a different meaning but
it is still a symbol in Hinduism in either direction.

>> Of course, this symbol of goodness has been severely damaged by the
>> untalented Austrian housepainter.
>
> Housepainter ? Hmmmm ...

Untalented housepainter...please get it right :-)

> The wrong-facing swastika was the emblem of a Swedish airline.
> Goering married the daughter of the owner ...

So it was not associated with Nazi ideology at first. The Finnish Air
Force also used a Swastika as its cocarde:

http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/faf.html

It was also of Swedish origin.

There is an artist in Canada with the improbable name of ManWoman who is
dedicating himself to rehabilitating the Swastika as a positive sign.

http://tribes.tribe.net/swastikaaton...546-4324-a5e6-
9c74cff4143c

http://tinyurl.com/ndqqpw

He is one of the people behind the Swastika Manifesto:

http://tribes.tribe.net/swastikaaton...d94-4124-87f8-
24c33f3b5243

http://tinyurl.com/naezqm

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Chris Marksberry wrote:
> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> This is pretty funny. It's a collection of photographs
>> of restaurant facades with particularly bad names.
>>
>> http://www.oddee.com/item_96733.aspx
>>
>> Who would have thought of naming a restaurant after
>> Adolf Hitler?
>>
>
> We have a restaurant here by the name of Crapitto's!
>
> http://www.crapittos.com/

That was the first restaurant that came to my mind. lol I believe it is
a family name. The other unique restaurant name, in the Houston area,
is FuKim.


Becca

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> That is odd, but given that the restaurant is in Mumbai, it may have
>>> been the association with the swastika (which goes back to the
>>> Neolithic period and is a symbol of good things in Hinduism), rather
>>> than Hitler himself, which is definitely an unfortunate association.
>>>
>> Except that the Indian swastika usually faces in the other direction.
>
> The swastika can face in any direction. It has a different meaning but
> it is still a symbol in Hinduism in either direction.
>
Please note the "usually".

>>> Of course, this symbol of goodness has been severely damaged by the
>>> untalented Austrian housepainter.
>>
>> Housepainter ? Hmmmm ...
>
> Untalented housepainter...please get it right :-)
>
He painted postcards after he was rejected by our academy of arts ...
He also was rejected by the Austrian army ...

>> The wrong-facing swastika was the emblem of a Swedish airline.
>> Goering married the daughter of the owner ...
>
> So it was not associated with Nazi ideology at first. The Finnish Air
> Force also used a Swastika as its cocarde:
>
Exactly. The emblems of the Nazi party were more or less by accident.
The swastika from Goerings wife and the brown uniforms of the SA
because those were the uniforms of the colonial troops from WW I
which the party could buy cheaply.

<snip>

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3b584$tqa$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

>> So it was not associated with Nazi ideology at first. The Finnish Air
>> Force also used a Swastika as its cocarde:
>>
> Exactly. The emblems of the Nazi party were more or less by accident.
> The swastika from Goerings wife and the brown uniforms of the SA
> because those were the uniforms of the colonial troops from WW I
> which the party could buy cheaply.

And your point is what exactly? I believe I pointed out that the Swastika
was NOT of Nazi origin in my first post-in-reply.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
> Michel Boucher wrote:
> >
> > Untalented housepainter...please get it right :-)
> >
> He painted postcards after he was rejected by our academy of arts ...
> He also was rejected by the Austrian army ...

He wasn't a housepainter. Churchill said that in a
famous speech, and it stuck.

There was an article in Life magazine shortly after
the war which showed about a dozen examples of
Hitler's paintings. He was rather good. I couldn't
paint anything nearly as well as he could.

I've also seen an article which showed a rather poor
example of his painting. I think this was selected
to cast disrepute on his talent, and is not
representative of his body of work.

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> > Except that the Indian swastika usually faces in the other direction.
>
> The swastika can face in any direction. It has a different meaning but
> it is still a symbol in Hinduism in either direction.

It is also used by Native Americans Indians.
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.


Subscribe:

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3b584$tqa$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>> So it was not associated with Nazi ideology at first. The Finnish Air
>>> Force also used a Swastika as its cocarde:
>>>
>> Exactly. The emblems of the Nazi party were more or less by accident.
>> The swastika from Goerings wife and the brown uniforms of the SA
>> because those were the uniforms of the colonial troops from WW I
>> which the party could buy cheaply.
>
> And your point is what exactly? I believe I pointed out that the
> Swastika was NOT of Nazi origin in my first post-in-reply.

My point ? The same as yours.
The symbols of the 3rd Reich had nothing to do with ideology.
They were chosen by chance.
The Swastikas were in wide use in Scandinavia.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:15:08 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> Michael Kuettner wrote:
> >
> > Michel Boucher wrote:
> > >
> > > Untalented housepainter...please get it right :-)
> > >
> > He painted postcards after he was rejected by our academy of arts ...
> > He also was rejected by the Austrian army ...
>
> He wasn't a housepainter. Churchill said that in a
> famous speech, and it stuck.
>
> There was an article in Life magazine shortly after
> the war which showed about a dozen examples of
> Hitler's paintings. He was rather good. I couldn't
> paint anything nearly as well as he could.
>
> I've also seen an article which showed a rather poor
> example of his painting. I think this was selected
> to cast disrepute on his talent, and is not
> representative of his body of work.

Every critic I've ever heard or read on the subject has said he was
distinctly mediocre. But I have wondered how those opinions were
influenced by what he was rather than the works.

Matthew

--
Mail to this account goes to the bit bucket.
In the unlikely event you want to mail me replace usenet with my name

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3cbmp$i9g$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

>> And your point is what exactly? I believe I pointed out that the
>> Swastika was NOT of Nazi origin in my first post-in-reply.
>
> My point ? The same as yours.
> The symbols of the 3rd Reich had nothing to do with ideology.

Ok, so you felt the need to reiterate rather than just simply add to the
conversation. As the surgeon said: suture self :-)

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3cbmp$i9g$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>> And your point is what exactly? I believe I pointed out that the
>>> Swastika was NOT of Nazi origin in my first post-in-reply.
>>
>> My point ? The same as yours.
>> The symbols of the 3rd Reich had nothing to do with ideology.
>
> Ok, so you felt the need to reiterate rather than just simply add to the
> conversation. As the surgeon said: suture self :-)

No, I felt the need to point out where it came from.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3cob6$i2$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

>> Ok, so you felt the need to reiterate rather than just simply add to the
>> conversation. As the surgeon said: suture self :-)
>
> No, I felt the need to point out where it came from.

But you see I had already pointed out that the Swastiska was as old as the
Neolithic period and had its modern origins in Indian symbolism. You
*added* that the Nazi use of the symbol was cribbed from decorations found
on Swedish fireplaces, but you actually failed to say how it got there or
what its significance was.

However, you might have missed the fact that the swastika (or hakenkreuz in
German) was worn by WWI pilots, of which Göring was one, as a symbol of
good luck. It was the good luck charm of pilots on both sides of the
lines, including Fitz Beckhardt and Werner Voss (Von Richthofen's wingman
for a while).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastik...y_20th_century

The story about the Swedish fireplace decoration may or may not be true,
but it is more likely that Göring picked it up from flyers' superstitions.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3cob6$i2$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>> Ok, so you felt the need to reiterate rather than just simply add to
>>> the conversation. As the surgeon said: suture self :-)
>>
>> No, I felt the need to point out where it came from.
>
> But you see I had already pointed out that the Swastiska was as old as
> the Neolithic period and had its modern origins in Indian symbolism.

I seriously doubt that the Scandinavian use of the symbol had anything
to do with India. The swastika was used as a sun symbol, AFAIR.

> You *added* that the Nazi use of the symbol was cribbed from decorations
> found on Swedish fireplaces, but you actually failed to say how it got
> there or what its significance was.
>
No, I said that the swastika was the emblem of the _airline_ of
Göring's father in law.
I don't know where you got the fireplaces from.

> However, you might have missed the fact that the swastika (or hakenkreuz
> in German) was worn by WWI pilots, of which Göring was one, as a symbol
> of good luck. It was the good luck charm of pilots on both sides of the
> lines, including Fitz Beckhardt and Werner Voss (Von Richthofen's wingman
> for a while).
>
Yes, there was that, too.
The Swastika was a good luck charme and a sun symbol.
But I seriously doubt any Indian influence.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastik...y_20th_century
>
> The story about the Swedish fireplace decoration may or may not be true,
> but it is more likely that Göring picked it up from flyers'
> superstitions.

I still have no idea where you found the fireplace.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
:

>> But you see I had already pointed out that the Swastiska was as old
>> as the Neolithic period and had its modern origins in Indian
>> symbolism.
>
> I seriously doubt that the Scandinavian use of the symbol had anything
> to do with India.

How so? Are you saying there was no neolithic connection between India
and Sweden?

>> You *added* that the Nazi use of the symbol was cribbed from
>> decorations found on Swedish fireplaces, but you actually failed to
>> say how it got there or what its significance was.
>>
> No, I said that the swastika was the emblem of the _airline_ of
> Göring's father in law.

Got a picture or a substantiating passage somewhere? I was unable to
find anything that stated this.

> I don't know where you got the fireplaces from.

I was being generic, indicating that swastikas were used in commonplace
object, not just the fuselage of airplanes.

>> However, you might have missed the fact that the swastika (or
>> hakenkreuz in German) was worn by WWI pilots, of which Göring was
>> one, as a symbol of good luck. It was the good luck charm of pilots
>> on both sides of the lines, including Fitz Beckhardt and Werner Voss
>> (Von Richthofen's wingman for a while).
>
> Yes, there was that, too.
> The Swastika was a good luck charme and a sun symbol.
> But I seriously doubt any Indian influence.

Boy, you'd be NO fun in Indo-European linguistics classes.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastik..._early_20th_ce
>> ntury
>>
>> The story about the Swedish fireplace decoration may or may not be
>> true, but it is more likely that Göring picked it up from flyers'
>> superstitions.
>
> I still have no idea where you found the fireplace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_vo...Rosen_swastika

As it turns out I was wrong about the timing of the fireplace incident
(but not the incident itself) and you were wrong about the Swedish
airline thing and about Göring. The fireplace incident post-dated the
choice of the emblem by Hitler (therefore Göring was not connected as you
suggested as he first met Hitler two years later), but von Rosen's emblem
was used on *Finnish*, not Swedish aicraft, which makes sense as the
Finns had it throughout he war.

QED, end of discussion.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:37:50 +0200, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
> The wrong-facing swastika was the emblem of a Swedish airline.
> Goering married the daughter of the owner ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner

at first i read that as 'Getting married the daughter of the owner...'
whoa!

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:54:09 +0200, Michael Kuettner wrote:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>
>>>> Of course, this symbol of goodness has been severely damaged by the
>>>> untalented Austrian housepainter.
>>>
>>> Housepainter ? Hmmmm ...
>>
>> Untalented housepainter...please get it right :-)
>>
> He painted postcards after he was rejected by our academy of arts ...
> He also was rejected by the Austrian army ...
>

everyone picks on poor adolf. he's just the victim of a bad press.

plus, he was good to his mama.

your pal,
blake

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> But you see I had already pointed out that the Swastiska was as old
>>> as the Neolithic period and had its modern origins in Indian
>>> symbolism.
>>
>> I seriously doubt that the Scandinavian use of the symbol had anything
>> to do with India.
>
> How so? Are you saying there was no neolithic connection between India
> and Sweden?
>
Yes, I'm saying exactly that.
At least, no traces have been found.

>>> You *added* that the Nazi use of the symbol was cribbed from
>>> decorations found on Swedish fireplaces, but you actually failed to
>>> say how it got there or what its significance was.
>>>
>> No, I said that the swastika was the emblem of the _airline_ of
>> Göring's father in law.
>
> Got a picture or a substantiating passage somewhere? I was unable to
> find anything that stated this.
>
It's somewhere in Maser or Kershaw. They're citing an interrogation with
Göring around the Nürnberg trials.

>> I don't know where you got the fireplaces from.
>
> I was being generic, indicating that swastikas were used in commonplace
> object, not just the fuselage of airplanes.
>
Your post :
<start quote>
> You *added* that the Nazi use of the symbol was cribbed from decorations
> found on Swedish fireplaces, but you actually failed to say how it got
> there or what its significance was.
<end quote>
Since you were adressing me ...

>>> However, you might have missed the fact that the swastika (or
>>> hakenkreuz in German) was worn by WWI pilots, of which Göring was
>>> one, as a symbol of good luck. It was the good luck charm of pilots
>>> on both sides of the lines, including Fitz Beckhardt and Werner Voss
>>> (Von Richthofen's wingman for a while).
>>
>> Yes, there was that, too.
>> The Swastika was a good luck charme and a sun symbol.
>> But I seriously doubt any Indian influence.
>
> Boy, you'd be NO fun in Indo-European linguistics classes.
>
Exactly. Since the use of the swastika _pre-dates_ the forming of
the Indo - European language group, it would be nonsense to see
it as a symbol typical for this group. Plus, The Finnish language
is not Indo-European, eg.

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastik..._early_20th_ce
>>> ntury
>>>
>>> The story about the Swedish fireplace decoration may or may not be
>>> true, but it is more likely that Göring picked it up from flyers'
>>> superstitions.
>>
>> I still have no idea where you found the fireplace.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_vo...Rosen_swastika
>
> As it turns out I was wrong about the timing of the fireplace incident
> (but not the incident itself) and you were wrong about the Swedish
> airline thing and about Göring. The fireplace incident post-dated the
> choice of the emblem by Hitler (therefore Göring was not connected as you
> suggested as he first met Hitler two years later), but von Rosen's emblem
> was used on *Finnish*, not Swedish aicraft, which makes sense as the
> Finns had it throughout he war.
>
> QED, end of discussion.

Oh, OK. Teacher syndrome, hmm ?
Stay with your "Indian origin". Bye.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
:

>> Got a picture or a substantiating passage somewhere? I was unable to
>> find anything that stated this.
>>
> It's somewhere in Maser or Kershaw. They're citing an interrogation
> with Göring around the Nürnberg trials.

And what, you can't find it in the actual transcripts?

Let me give you a hand: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/

>> Boy, you'd be NO fun in Indo-European linguistics classes.
>>
> Exactly. Since the use of the swastika _pre-dates_ the forming of
> the Indo - European language group, it would be nonsense to see
> it as a symbol typical for this group.

And why is that? If the symbol POST-dated the formation, it *might* be
specious to see a relationship, but as it PRE-dates, it is quite likely
that it was part of the symbolic baggage.

> Plus, The Finnish language
> is not Indo-European, eg.

But Suomi is found within an Indo-European area, as are the other two
Finno-Ugric languages: Türkçe and Magyar. Geographic connection
certainly explains the transference of a symbol from one group to
another.

Another example of possible transference in Suomi is the introduction of
the root "sat-" for "one hundred" which is most likely an import from
Russian. I am merely using this example to demonstrate that geographic
propinquity has a definite impact on cultural and linguistic
transference. It can be achieved in other ways as well, but that is a
primary conduit for transmission.

> Stay with your "Indian origin". Bye.

I guess you don't like new ideas.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Got a picture or a substantiating passage somewhere? I was unable to
>>> find anything that stated this.
>>>
>> It's somewhere in Maser or Kershaw. They're citing an interrogation
>> with Göring around the Nürnberg trials.
>
> And what, you can't find it in the actual transcripts?
>
> Let me give you a hand: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/
>
Those are the trial transcriptions. <sigh>

>>> Boy, you'd be NO fun in Indo-European linguistics classes.
>>>
>> Exactly. Since the use of the swastika _pre-dates_ the forming of
>> the Indo - European language group, it would be nonsense to see
>> it as a symbol typical for this group.
>
> And why is that? If the symbol POST-dated the formation, it *might* be
> specious to see a relationship, but as it PRE-dates, it is quite likely
> that it was part of the symbolic baggage.
>
It means that the swastika is _NOT_ a symbol specific to that group.
There goes your Indian origin.

>> Plus, The Finnish language
>> is not Indo-European, eg.
>
> But Suomi is found within an Indo-European area, as are the other two
> Finno-Ugric languages: Türkçe and Magyar. Geographic connection
> certainly explains the transference of a symbol from one group to
> another.
>
Or it means that each group developed it by themselves.
Boats or agriculture was developed independently, too.

> Another example of possible transference in Suomi is the introduction of
> the root "sat-" for "one hundred" which is most likely an import from
> Russian. I am merely using this example to demonstrate that geographic
> propinquity has a definite impact on cultural and linguistic
> transference. It can be achieved in other ways as well, but that is a
> primary conduit for transmission.
>
Unless there is no transference.
It's up to you to show that the groups mentioned above took the
symbol from IE speakers.

>> Stay with your "Indian origin". Bye.
>
> I guess you don't like new ideas.

What new ideas ? The only thing you've shown is confusion
and weaseling.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3d6np$d1n$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>> It's somewhere in Maser or Kershaw. They're citing an interrogation
>>> with Göring around the Nürnberg trials.
>>
>> And what, you can't find it in the actual transcripts?
>>
>> Let me give you a hand: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/
>>
> Those are the trial transcriptions. <sigh>

You said it was from the Nuremberg trial so I invited you to find the
exchange. Is this too much for you? It's called "using primary sources"
in history.

In fact a rather extensive search of the Nuremberg transcripts has not
revealed this comment by Göring. And even if it did, how can you know it
was true? We know the Hakenkreuz was chosen as a symbol in 1919, at least
two years before Göring met Hitler (1922) so he certainly had little if no
influence whatsover on that choice.

> It means that the swastika is _NOT_ a symbol specific to that group.
> There goes your Indian origin.

I didn't say it was specific. I said it had its modern origins in Indian
symbolism. That connection could be 3000-4000 years old. I don't think,
given that much time that it seems more improbable rather than less so,
unless you don't understand cultural transference. The more time between
the points, the more likely the transference is to have taken place, unless
an impenetrable geographic barrier stands in the way. Not the case here.

>> But Suomi is found within an Indo-European area, as are the other two
>> Finno-Ugric languages: Türkçe and Magyar. Geographic connection
>> certainly explains the transference of a symbol from one group to
>> another.
>>
> Or it means that each group developed it by themselves.
> Boats or agriculture was developed independently, too.

Can you prove that boats and agriculture did not have a single common
source within the proper geographic context? Simply gainsaying everything
I propose is not a proper argument, q.v.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

>> Another example of possible transference in Suomi is the introduction of
>> the root "sat-" for "one hundred" which is most likely an import from
>> Russian. I am merely using this example to demonstrate that geographic
>> propinquity has a definite impact on cultural and linguistic
>> transference. It can be achieved in other ways as well, but that is a
>> primary conduit for transmission.
>>
> Unless there is no transference.

Well, then it should be possible to show that ancient Suomi has the root
sat- *before* contact with the Russians. Otherwise, my proposition is at
least valid. Simply saying "No it isn't" is a load of ********.

> It's up to you to show that the groups mentioned above took the
> symbol from IE speakers.

Actually, the symbol can be found everywhere, but as I suggested, it had
its modern origins in Indian symbolism and I can at the very least
demonstrate a path of connection.

The swastika had largely been ignored as a symbol (except in India where it
has religious significance) until interest in its "importance" was
rekindled by the writings of Madame Blavatsky (who claimed to have spent
two years studying in Tibet as well as to have later spent time in India)
when she brought it out of obscurity.

>>> Stay with your "Indian origin". Bye.
>>
>> I guess you don't like new ideas.
>
> What new ideas ? The only thing you've shown is confusion
> and weaseling.

We are a font of dourness, are we not.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

There used to be a diner in downtown Pittsburgh near the Greyhound Bus
terminal called Al's Terminal Lunch.

When I lived in Detroit they had a local chain of cafeteria type
restaurants called Sign of the Beefcarver, which their specialty was
open faced fresh sliced beef sandwiches. It took me a while to
finally go there but the beef was good.

Matthew Malthouse wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:15:08 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> > There was an article in Life magazine shortly after
> > the war which showed about a dozen examples of
> > Hitler's paintings. He was rather good. I couldn't
> > paint anything nearly as well as he could.
> >
> > I've also seen an article which showed a rather poor
> > example of his painting. I think this was selected
> > to cast disrepute on his talent, and is not
> > representative of his body of work.
>
> Every critic I've ever heard or read on the subject has said he was
> distinctly mediocre. But I have wondered how those opinions were
> influenced by what he was rather than the works.

Kinda hard to separate the artist from the art, in this
case. Mediocre compared to what? I've read criticism
which called his style very "architectural", which seems
to be correct. You don't see many people in his art,
and when you do, they aren't very well drawn. The
buildings and the trees, however, are drawn with a
high level of technical skill and realism. His sense
of color was good, too. Too bad he was so determined
to be a fine artist rather than an architect. He might
have become a decent architect.

Mark Thorson > wrote in :

> Kinda hard to separate the artist from the art, in this
> case.

And in other cases?

> Mediocre compared to what?

Rubens, Vermeer, Carravaggio, even the impressionists.

> I've read criticism
> which called his style very "architectural", which seems
> to be correct. You don't see many people in his art,
> and when you do, they aren't very well drawn. The
> buildings and the trees, however, are drawn with a
> high level of technical skill and realism. His sense
> of color was good, too. Too bad he was so determined
> to be a fine artist rather than an architect. He might
> have become a decent architect.

Or even as Norman Spinrad suggested in his Iron Dream, a science-ficti9on
illustrator ;-)

Coulda shoulda woulda...

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3d6np$d1n$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>>> It's somewhere in Maser or Kershaw. They're citing an interrogation
>>>> with Göring around the Nürnberg trials.
>>>
>>> And what, you can't find it in the actual transcripts?
>>>
>>> Let me give you a hand: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/
>>>
>> Those are the trial transcriptions. <sigh>
>
> You said it was from the Nuremberg trial so I invited you to find the
> exchange. Is this too much for you? It's called "using primary sources"
> in history.
>
No, what I said is still above. Learn to read.
Otherwise, it seems that old Hermann was telling big tales again.
The Swastika entered the Nazi party via the Thule-Gesellschaft;
a really nasty bunch.
The man who introduced it was Friedrich Krohn, a member of
Thule, Germanenorden and the NSDAP.
A little further digging seems to point to that Swastika as a representation
of Thor's hammer; no good luck charme at all.

> In fact a rather extensive search of the Nuremberg transcripts has not
> revealed this comment by Göring. And even if it did, how can you know it
> was true? We know the Hakenkreuz was chosen as a symbol in 1919, at
> least two years before Göring met Hitler (1922) so he certainly had
> little if no influence whatsover on that choice.
>
See above.

>> It means that the swastika is _NOT_ a symbol specific to that group.
>> There goes your Indian origin.
>
> I didn't say it was specific. I said it had its modern origins in Indian
> symbolism.
The "modern origin" didn't surface until the 1970ies.
India in Germany in the 1920ies was only known to some linguists;
the symbolism entirely unknown.

> That connection could be 3000-4000 years old. I don't think,
> given that much time that it seems more improbable rather than less so,
> unless you don't understand cultural transference. The more time between
> the points, the more likely the transference is to have taken place,
> unless an impenetrable geographic barrier stands in the way. Not the
> case here.
>
Then explain the use of a Swastika by the Minoans.
Superior culture, non IE, no transfer.
That was another example, 4000 years old.
Unless you can show that cultural transfer happened - and for this
you would have to show that the symbol had the same meaning in the cultures.
I don't hold my breath ...


>>> But Suomi is found within an Indo-European area, as are the other two
>>> Finno-Ugric languages: Türkçe and Magyar. Geographic connection
>>> certainly explains the transference of a symbol from one group to
>>> another.
>>>
>> Or it means that each group developed it by themselves.
>> Boats or agriculture was developed independently, too.
>
> Can you prove that boats and agriculture did not have a single common
> source within the proper geographic context? Simply gainsaying
> everything I propose is not a proper argument, q.v.:
>
Since American Indians developed agriculture before contact,
here's your example.
Since American Indians used the Swastika before contact, that's
another example.
And you still haven't got it : You make a claim, you back it up.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
>
>>> Another example of possible transference in Suomi is the introduction
>>> of the root "sat-" for "one hundred" which is most likely an import
>>> from Russian. I am merely using this example to demonstrate that
>>> geographic propinquity has a definite impact on cultural and linguistic
>>> transference. It can be achieved in other ways as well, but that is a
>>> primary conduit for transmission.
>>>
>> Unless there is no transference.
>
> Well, then it should be possible to show that ancient Suomi has the root
> sat- *before* contact with the Russians. Otherwise, my proposition is at
> least valid. Simply saying "No it isn't" is a load of ********.
>

We're talking about the Swastika, not loan words.
Or are you weaseling again ?

>> It's up to you to show that the groups mentioned above took the
>> symbol from IE speakers.
>
> Actually, the symbol can be found everywhere, but as I suggested, it had
> its modern origins in Indian symbolism and I can at the very least
> demonstrate a path of connection.
>
Then demonstrate ...

> The swastika had largely been ignored as a symbol (except in India where
> it has religious significance)

And in Scandinavia as Thor's hammer, and and and.

> until interest in its "importance" was
> rekindled by the writings of Madame Blavatsky (who claimed to have spent
> two years studying in Tibet as well as to have later spent time in India)
> when she brought it out of obscurity.
>
It gets better and better ...

That was your demonstration ? Hmmm

>>>> Stay with your "Indian origin". Bye.
>>>
>>> I guess you don't like new ideas.
>>
>> What new ideas ? The only thing you've shown is confusion
>> and weaseling.
>
> We are a font of dourness, are we not.

No, I just don't like permanent evasions.
Plus, you don't seem to get the simple fact that adapting a language
or words from that language doesn't mean that religious symbols
are also adapted.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

Michael Kuettner wrote:
<snip>
> No, what I said is still above. Learn to read.
> Otherwise, it seems that old Hermann was telling big tales again.
> The Swastika entered the Nazi party via the Thule-Gesellschaft;
> a really nasty bunch.
> The man who introduced it was Friedrich Krohn, a member of
> Thule, Germanenorden and the NSDAP.
> A little further digging seems to point to that Swastika as a
> representation of Thor's hammer; no good luck charme at all.
>
A correction : The NSDAP form of the Swastika came from
Guido von List of the Thule Gesellschaft; Krohn was against it.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
:

>> I didn't say it was specific. I said it had its modern origins in
>> Indian symbolism.
> The "modern origin" didn't surface until the 1970ies.
> India in Germany in the 1920ies was only known to some linguists;
> the symbolism entirely unknown.

Care to present some substantiating evidence to the effect that no one but
linguists knew about India? That's quite a load you want us to swallow
there.

>> That connection could be 3000-4000 years old. I don't think,
>> given that much time that it seems more improbable rather than less
>> so, unless you don't understand cultural transference. The more time
>> between the points, the more likely the transference is to have taken
>> place, unless an impenetrable geographic barrier stands in the way.
>> Not the case here.
>>
> Then explain the use of a Swastika by the Minoans.
> Superior culture, non IE, no transfer.

Minoans were a mercantile people and had seafaring skills. There certainly
could have been transfer. And as for their "superior culture" you might
have read von Däniken once too many times there, me bucko. They were
effectively wiped out by the first tsunami that came along and then quickly
assimilated by the Greeks.

> Unless you can show that cultural transfer happened - and for this
> you would have to show that the symbol had the same meaning in the
> cultures.

Why do you assume that?

>> Can you prove that boats and agriculture did not have a single common
>> source within the proper geographic context? Simply gainsaying
>> everything I propose is not a proper argument, q.v.:
>>
> Since American Indians developed agriculture before contact,
> here's your example.

No. I said "within the proper geographic context". Obviously, North
America is beyond the geographic context of Mesopotamia -> Scandinavia.

> Since American Indians used the Swastika before contact, that's
> another example.

That could easily have come from elsewhere. Sporadic contact with North
American indigenous populations took place on a number of occasions
(Vikings in 1000AD, the Chinese in the 15th century, possibly even Brendan
the Navigator if he existed, and more) not to mention more regular contact
with basque and portuguese fishing fleets from 1200AD on.

> And you still haven't got it : You make a claim, you back it up.

Ah but I do...you merely gainsay what I propose.

>> Well, then it should be possible to show that ancient Suomi has the
>> root sat- *before* contact with the Russians. Otherwise, my
>> proposition is at least valid. Simply saying "No it isn't" is a load
>> of ********.
>
> We're talking about the Swastika, not loan words.
> Or are you weaseling again ?

Transference is transference, whether is it a pattern or a word.

>> The swastika had largely been ignored as a symbol (except in India
>> where it has religious significance)
>
> And in Scandinavia as Thor's hammer, and and and.

That is one interpretation. There actually isn't much to back that one up
and honestly, the shape is not of a hammer, so it should be fairly obvious
someone is fishing (unless of course you want to bring in the art of Jack
Kirby to back up your claim).

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp...008/09/Marvel%
20Masterworks%20the%20Mighty%20Thor%20Volume%207%2 0Jack%20Kirby.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/nszsut

Look ma! It's toinin'!

>> until interest in its "importance" was
>> rekindled by the writings of Madame Blavatsky (who claimed to have
>> spent two years studying in Tibet as well as to have later spent time
>> in India) when she brought it out of obscurity.
>>
> It gets better and better ...
>
> That was your demonstration ? Hmmm

One that actually links to Hitler, yes.

> Plus, you don't seem to get the simple fact that adapting a language
> or words from that language doesn't mean that religious symbols
> are also adapted.

So, for you, contact is not the issue. Perhaps you could be specific as to
what IS the issue (after all, you're the one who decided this was worth
pursuing but then fail to provide ANY, and I stress the word ANY,
substantiating evidence OF ANY SORT.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
> A little further digging seems to point to that Swastika as a representation
> of Thor's hammer; no good luck charme at all.

Whoa, whoa. There's nothing wrong with Thor's hammer.
Nothing at all. :-)

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> I didn't say it was specific. I said it had its modern origins in
>>> Indian symbolism.
>> The "modern origin" didn't surface until the 1970ies.
>> India in Germany in the 1920ies was only known to some linguists;
>> the symbolism entirely unknown.
>
> Care to present some substantiating evidence to the effect that no one
> but linguists knew about India? That's quite a load you want us to
> swallow there.
>
How often do I have to repeat "You can't prove a negative" to
get it into your pointy little head ?

Bring some evidence that indian symbolism was general knowledge
in the 1920ies, you twit.

>>> That connection could be 3000-4000 years old. I don't think,
>>> given that much time that it seems more improbable rather than less
>>> so, unless you don't understand cultural transference. The more time
>>> between the points, the more likely the transference is to have taken
>>> place, unless an impenetrable geographic barrier stands in the way.
>>> Not the case here.
>>>
>> Then explain the use of a Swastika by the Minoans.
>> Superior culture, non IE, no transfer.
>
> Minoans were a mercantile people and had seafaring skills. There
> certainly could have been transfer.

Could have been. You level of argument.
There could have been Martians, too.

> And as for their "superior culture"
> you might have read von Däniken once too many times there, me bucko.

You haven't even got a clue what you're talking about, bozo.

> They were effectively wiped out by the first tsunami that came along and

Oh, they were ? Please publish your ground-breaking research !
Help all those baffled Archaeologists.

> then quickly assimilated by the Greeks.
>
Neat trick. Assimilating a people which was effectively wiped out.
Hmmmmm

>> Unless you can show that cultural transfer happened - and for this
>> you would have to show that the symbol had the same meaning in the
>> cultures.
>
> Why do you assume that?
>
You don't read English to well ?
No - wait, you've snipped too much and shifted goalposts so quick
that you've lost track of your silly claims.

>>> Can you prove that boats and agriculture did not have a single common
>>> source within the proper geographic context? Simply gainsaying
>>> everything I propose is not a proper argument, q.v.:
>>>
>> Since American Indians developed agriculture before contact,
>> here's your example.
>
> No. I said "within the proper geographic context". Obviously, North
> America is beyond the geographic context of Mesopotamia -> Scandinavia.
>
Since the swastika also appeared outside your "proper geographic[al]
context", let's call this what it is : bullshit.

>> Since American Indians used the Swastika before contact, that's
>> another example.
>
> That could easily have come from elsewhere.

Yeah, sure. From Mars, for example.

> Sporadic contact with North
> American indigenous populations took place on a number of occasions
> (Vikings in 1000AD,

You know where L'Anse Aux Meadows is, no ?
You know that there's no evidence for Viking influence ?

> the Chinese in the 15th century,

Oh, Menzies. So that's the level of your "knowledge". <snort>

> possibly even Brendan the Navigator if he existed, and more)

Yes, and with the Flying Spaghetti monster.

> not to mention more
> regular contact with basque and portuguese fishing fleets from 1200AD on.
>
Yeah, sure. Show me Archaeological or Linguistic prove for that.
Could be groundbreaking research again !

>> And you still haven't got it : You make a claim, you back it up.
>
> Ah but I do...you merely gainsay what I propose.
>
You're bullshitting, obfuscating, weaseling and moving goalposts.
That's what you do, you half-educated twit.

>>> Well, then it should be possible to show that ancient Suomi has the
>>> root sat- *before* contact with the Russians. Otherwise, my
>>> proposition is at least valid. Simply saying "No it isn't" is a load
>>> of ********.
>>
>> We're talking about the Swastika, not loan words.
>> Or are you weaseling again ?
>
> Transference is transference, whether is it a pattern or a word.
>
Then show some proof of that transference, dimwit.
"Because I say so" or "It could have been" doesn't cut the mustard.

>>> The swastika had largely been ignored as a symbol (except in India
>>> where it has religious significance)
>>
>> And in Scandinavia as Thor's hammer, and and and.
>
> That is one interpretation. There actually isn't much to back that one
> up and honestly, the shape is not of a hammer, so it should be fairly
> obvious someone is fishing (unless of course you want to bring in the
> art of Jack Kirby to back up your claim).
>
> http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp...008/09/Marvel%
> 20Masterworks%20the%20Mighty%20Thor%20Volume%207%2 0Jack%20Kirby.jpg
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nszsut
>
> Look ma! It's toinin'!
>

You really are an idiot without arguments.

>>> until interest in its "importance" was
>>> rekindled by the writings of Madame Blavatsky (who claimed to have
>>> spent two years studying in Tibet as well as to have later spent time
>>> in India) when she brought it out of obscurity.
>>>
>> It gets better and better ...
>>
>> That was your demonstration ? Hmmm
>
> One that actually links to Hitler, yes.
>
You really are an idiot.

>> Plus, you don't seem to get the simple fact that adapting a language
>> or words from that language doesn't mean that religious symbols
>> are also adapted.
>
> So, for you, contact is not the issue. Perhaps you could be specific as
> to what IS the issue (after all, you're the one who decided this was
> worth pursuing but then fail to provide ANY, and I stress the word ANY,
> substantiating evidence OF ANY SORT.

Sorry, I've got nothing as good as your wiki-links, you ******.
Except for the parts you snipped.
Now run along and play in traffic.

And read some books instead of googling and misunderstanding.

"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3fksk$kp2$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> You really are an idiot.

Well, at least I'm an idiot who demonstrates what he advances...you merely
gainsay everything and resort to ad hominems.

I'm done with you.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3fksk$kp2$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> You really are an idiot.
>
> Well, at least I'm an idiot who demonstrates what he advances...you
> merely gainsay everything and resort to ad hominems.
>
> I'm done with you.

Good, go back to Menzies and his Chinese sailors, idiot.