On Sunday 18 January 2004 01:09 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
RK is a jew who lives in NY. MNH stating that he is a Nazi from NY implies firstly that he is ideologically motivated to kill RK, and secondly that he lives close to RK.
I think you are making a logical fallicy here. You assume that because MNH calls himself a Nazi, therefore he wants to kill RK. As I argued, one can describe oneself -- or another person -- a Nazi for many reasons. In my last email, I suggested it was in response to RK's habit of calling anyone he disagrees with "a Nazi"; another possible meaning would be the "Soup Nazi" from the Seinberg sitcom, who is not clearly anti-semitic, merely despotic in how he runs his restaurant.
IIRC my high school years, I had one or two teachers describe themselves semi-humorously as "a Nazi", meaning they tolerated no dissent.
Answered below
One other point I shuld have mentioned was that when I looked at for the quote in question, I could not find it. Did someone delete it? If so, was it MNH? And if it was him, did he do it because he regretted his choice of words -- or because he wanted to hide his indiscression?
If wikipedia weren't so slow I'd check again, but I am fairly sure that the comment was deleted by RK because he found it to be hostile. I would have done so as well.
It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY, but:
1.Why mention that on his talk page then? 2.With that same post, MNH said something to the effect that "people wanted you [RK] banned many months ago"
This means that he is not as new as his November 2003 signup date would suggest, and that he obviously knows a bit about the whole RK situation, and therefor also perhaps that RK lives in NY.
Or it could be that MNH has either been reading the archive of the maillist, or lurking here. If so he, would not be the only one. I find it surprising that about the same time there was a thread here whether or not the September 11 attacks should be labelled "terrorist" or not, Wik arbitrarily decided to remove that word from all of relevant articles.
Your criticisms of my interpretation of his statement are all valid. However, what you have failed to dispel (in my mind), is the possibility that it was meant as a threat. Implicit threats function not by being overt threats, but rather by having the property that they can be interpreted as a threat. I concede that one has to also employ a measure of likelihood. Your suggestion that this statement was meant as an attack on RK for calling others Nazis has in my mind lowered the possibility that it was meant as a threat. But I am still of the opinion that it is a possibility.
I don't think that your charge that my interpretation is a logical fallacy is correct. But I concede that this was due to my poor wording of the matter. I did not mean to suggest that his statement is *only* interpretable as a threat. Merely that it is a possible interpretation. In the interpretation that I submit as a possibility, the term "Nazi" is taken in its original meaning. A meaning that is accompanied by the ideological baggage that the only sollution to the "Judenproblem" is the extermination of all Jews.
I know of the common usage of the word Nazi to humerously or combatively refer to someone who displays certain behaviour characteristic of 'proper' Nazis. And I agree with you that MNH could be using it in that sense. However, it is characteristically employed in conjunction with other attributes: eg. "soup-nazi", "feminazi", etc. This was not the case here.
This matter is far less obvious than you think, Sascha. And I would hope that the principle of Wikilove means that any request for banning requires at least a preponderance of evidence.
My case is founded first and foremost on his personal attacks. Whether or not the "Nazi from NY" statement is seen as an implicit threat does not at all affect the validity of my request for a ban. I do regard his "Nazi from NY" as an implicit threat, but as with all implicit threats, it is a matter of interpretation. I don't think that it can be argued, however, that this remark was not hostile and not combative.
Best, Sascha Noyes