Antonescu, part II

Victor wrote:

"Now to cut things short. This topic has become pointless. I no longer have the time and patience I used to have when dealing with people with ideas similar to you and redbaron's, so this is the picture:

1. The text will not be modified
2. Denial of war crimes will not be tolerated (see guidelines) and will result with eventual banning if perpetrated for too long.
3. If you and redbaron wish to discuss (in your cases euphemism for whitewash, justify, deny) the war crimes, there is already an opened topic for this. Please do so there.

Topic closed. "

The topic has become pointless?

WHY? BECAUSE YOU FEEL SO? Where is it written you need the patience to read "the nonsense" we are writing? Where it is written there are X topics and no others can be opened?

THE TOPIC WAS DECENT and the language WAS DECENT. WTF is this? censorship? I CANNOT SAY THINGS you find... what, inappropriate? What did I say that was inappropriate?! Did someone feel offended because of my messages? Please do tell!
I would say more in here, but in comparison with you, I do not act on blood rush to the brain, so I will keep my message milder.

Denial of war crimes? Where did someone deny... what? WE ARE DISCUSSING things.
I have took the time to answer your message and you do what? CLOSE THE TOPIC? Wtf man??!! Are you incapable of keeping thins civilized? Close/erase this topic also!

And RedBaron is written with Capital letter, if you are incapable of respecting another person and discussing opinion you might very well represent the notion of what you are so "brilliantly" attacking!

And one more thing, probably you feel Superior to all of us, of course you know everything, you own the truth that is yet to be defined, the so called "obvious truth", you can censor whatever you dont like, you can be bias and you can label anything as "white wash". Exactly like so many Dictators in this world did. You should be a shame of yourself!
This is not the way to conduct a forum, blocking civilized topics just because you get upset and lack arguments or patience? You should be a shame of yourself! You are incapable of discussing things and you know that, else why block a decent language with normal opinions on both sides topic? Oh, because you lack patience and such topics are not to be discussed. Sounds FAMILIAR?

Now delete this topic, show you power or whatever you are missing in reality. Because such behavior only proves what some search facts for... and only reinforces what I have said, that people like you with this mentality of censorship, with changing moods and "superior intelligence" keep this nation on its knees, destroys the mentality and free will, the freedom of speech, of discussions.

YOU SIR, should be a shame of YOURSELF for such an action!!!

This post has been edited by RedBaron on October 01, 2010 06:43 pm

Look RedBaron, we got it, you have a problem with the use of the word "controversial" when Antonescu is described. It was explained to you that the description will not be removed. You keep insisting. What do you hope to achieve?
This forum is frequented by people who actually know a thing or two about history. This is not a "cuib" for "green shirts" and hotheads. There are other places where you can share your adoration for the light that shines out of the Fuehrer's (Conducartor's) behind.

It is plainly evident that you do not understant what "Controversial" means.
Antonescu is not "universally loved" nor is he "universally hated". A person like that is "controversial". "Controversial" sits right in the middle between "loved" and "hated".
Controversial does not automatically mean "bad" nor does it mean "good".

Explanations of "controversy" and "controversial":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controversial
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/Controversat

None of these explanations define the word "controverse" as "bad". Only you do that.

Everyone can see that you think that Antonescu has done some "very good things" for which he deserves a lot of recognition, such as "deportation of gypsies" and "pogroms", but these are far from "good" for people with a modicum of common sense.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on October 01, 2010 01:30 pm

@Victor "Yet you do not extend the same Christian principle of not judging to King Mihai (see quote below). Typical."

I'm very sorry Victor that you do not understant that a forum is for debates/opinions/comments...any of them...if there is not obscene language. And was not the case.

But when you judge a personality (Mihai I) in a history book or on an Article is something different than on a forum!!
So I'm free to say my points about Antonescu, King Mihai I, Hitler, etc...that why this site have forum section. Isn't it? ... if you will not block my account.

The fact that you closed a topic where there is not obscene language it means that something upset you...and I'm still courious if the negative note will stand if Antonescu will be will be rehabilitated...please do not reply.

Regards,
Have a nice weekend!!

Define "rehabilitated"
Radu

I have a message on the other topic, I think page 3... in the end of that message, I stated... something along these lines: some people feel the note is not balanced, not fair (whatever you wanna call it), our wish is to change it.

There is no phrase you can assign to me, in which I DEMAND someone changes that. Also, in the same message I said that maybe, keep the note but move it to the end of the text.

Now - it was stated the note does not get changed. Did I challenge that? No!

But... I can voice some opinion, I was asked why I did not reply to the war crimes, I did, AVOIDING the "hot spots", I only replied to the Odessa incident.
What was the result - "I have no patience - topic closed".

Excuse me... but such a thing is equal to censorship. It seems we must follow some imaginary predefined rules, we should have maybe only a limited number of characters to write our messages, we cannot bring into debate anything... because its "obvious"...

This is a FORUM, either one Bans the topic "Antonescu", either allows Civilized discussions.

As for controversial, you keep insisting with the term. See my messages, I said that your definition is correct (text book), but in reality has a negative connotation, I gave you also an example. What MORE do you want from me? I wont agree to you point of view because (IMO) its no related to reality, especially when foreign people who use the term in their daily lives, read the text. Of course, to the example I gave you, no answer came from you. I asked what opinion you have if I present you a person describing him/her in a specific way (see my message). Does that make the discussion inappropriate? Did I fail to argument my claim? I dont think so! We are discussing or we were - until the topic was blocked...

Man oh man...

This post has been edited by RedBaron on October 01, 2010 06:36 pm

A person who has fallen into disgrace and then is restored to public life...means that he/her is rehabilitated.
I don't say that Antonescu is not an "war criminal", but if he is then all army leaders in ww2 are "war criminals" by definition...and they are not "war criminals" for public life only because they won the war!!

Because you like definitions, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_rehabilitation

Thanks,
Dan.

Again, you are right that "controversial" is neutral in gneral by definition, but for a "military career" or for a "state leader" "controversial" is negative and for a native english reader is "very" negative .
A controversial football referee, a controversial architect, a controversial writter, etc. is not negative but neutral. A state leader since he sworn...is not controversial. If it is that he will be after that...then it is negative attribute.
This is how I understand, maybe I'm wrong ... but plase do not quit Topics without reasons...as it is at least "controversial".

I have absolutely no idea what is it that upsets you.
You are on your own mate. I am out of this.
Radu

PS I am getting increasingly convinced that RedBaron and Dan_531983 are one and the same thing. This is NGOA all over again.

I think you should check out IPs and the region of the IP allocation, maybe the provider before you ACCUSE ME YET AGAIN of fantasies you have.

I do not use clones so keep for yourself such accusations until you can prove them. Or should I be "guilty" until proven innocent. Oh but wait, does this sound familiar? Guilty until... yada yada

Omg, you people really have issues, its 2010 going for 2011, in theory we should have evolved since 1989... it seems we didnt... my dear God... Purely "ROMANIAN" mentality in here... To follow the same line of thinking, I could say you are a clone of Victor, since both of you have more or less the same opinion. Of course that would be wrong. And a Hint for you - maybe you should PM first the Admin to ask an investigation on my account and the one you suspect as being a clone, BEFORE PUBLICLY stating such things! What do you say? Such behavior as you displayed in accusing me, was characteristic to... fill in the blanks.

I dont like something or I cannot prove something, its clear there are either clones, either "partisans"... man oh man oh man, its getting better and better
Strange how 2 people might have the same ideas regarding controversial matters. What do you say Dan, are you my clone!? Sorry, couldnt resist it I think we are both reaching the BANNED status quite soon

But indulge me Radub, you did not answer my question... or I missed your answer, returning "on topic" if I can still say that. I will ask again: if I present you a person in a meeting and tell you the following - "Dear Radu, this is Popescu, a good doctor, highly regarded, his controversial reputation of drug abuse and alcohol is not subject of our meeting, only his medical skills." Is your text book definition of the term seem appropriate?

This post has been edited by RedBaron on October 01, 2010 10:04 pm

You really need to get a life.
Radu

thanks but I really think its none of your business to comment on anyone's life for that matter or to accuse a person you dont know
old habits die hard?

Dogs bark, camel train moves on. Your freedom of speech is no match for my overwhelming freedom to care less about what you got to say.
You keep going on about how your freedom of speech is curtailed and how you are not allowed to say what you want. In fact, as you can see, you are given free reign to say whatever you please, it is just that you failed to make a point. You see, the key of winning a debate does not lie in speaking a lot, but rather in saying a lot. But I guess, since you cannot understand a simple concept such as "controversial" I doubt you can understand the diference between "speaking" and "saying". Start making sense and I promise that you get my attention.
Nothing to see here. I spent too much time on this. I have other things do do.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on October 02, 2010 08:09 am

Hi,

For me the topic is closed because i did some explanations and I received only NON answers, when I said that Mihai I is a coward someone answered "Typical", when there is 2 different users who belive that the note is negative then Administrator quit the dialog...if I were you I would be happy as only 2 are against...and the rest are for...I'm sorry.

- I explained why "controversial" is negative for a "state leader" or "military career"

- I said that any extra/additional/gratuitously information/note is not needed (even it is + or -). The rest of the article is good and I appreciate the work (but I have to say that wikipedia is more complete and correct)

- As the article is a very summary of Antonescu's military career, I belive that is for anybody...even for "non-technical" people who heard first time about Antonescu.
Finally, dear administrators, if you clear your memory for a second of all detailed information you know abot Antonescu (and no doubt that you know probably more than all of us together) and look at the note by the eyes of a first time reader...you will find that the note is NEGATIVE!!

P.S.
For Radub...saying that a person is the "clone" of the other just because share same opinions...make you controversial.
If you simply look at the way we are writting english...you can conclude that dan_531983 and RedBaron is not the same person.

Like I already said. This is pointless. Topic closed.