Talk:Bernhard Hoetger

Untitled
I don't know how to change the title of the article, but his name is Bernhard, not Bernard...can somebody fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herzog31 (talk • contribs)

I've done it - At the top of the page next to the Article, discussion, edit this page, history tabs is the move tab. Just click on that and follow the instruction. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I´d suggest changing the translation of German 'Lichtbringer' into the better known Latin term 'Lucifer'. There´s a proverb 'Fool me once shame on me' about trying to incite people using arbitrary misinterpretation of information, so although I guess this joke was intended by the author, it´s the sort that might backfire, eventually improving the image of those that were supposed to look silly.

Statement: Call me Ishmael. Actually, though, I´m the Wankker, with double-k for that double dose of wankiness. Being the Wankker ends my political career... before it began. The Damocles sword of being the Wankker also finished my personal life. What does the Wankker have to do with the movie Inglourious Basterds? Well, both are movie titles ( Wankker is as translation ) seemingly containing typos. Also, the latter movie has an actor, August D., that was noticed first for his role in a conspiracy theory movie. The conspiracy concerning the Wankker is as follows: Once upon a time, a neighbour asked me to grant an interview to an insurance salesman. In 2004, the family name of said neighbour appeared as the writer in the titles of some movie, you know the name. So I guess that insurance salesman was that writer / actor. To me this means that the propaganda caste in my country knows it´s possible to make crippling jokes about me, without the simple population noticing. It´s like the joke that artist tried to pull vs Adolph: If Adolph doesn´t react asap, the artist and his buddies will be able to tell the population that Stupid-Adolph didn´t notice that obvious joke, because Adolph is a painter not an equal in the intellectual cycles supposed to govern a civilized country. So, by letting Adolph or me know that they are able to pull this joke inside their caste, they confirm amongst each other that they [the propaganda caste] are [each member] significantly more powerful than me, because if I were to do such a joke, humiliating someone with other people noticing, well, I´d get into trouble with the police, charge of slander. The difference between Adolph and me: Adolph was a politician, a person of public interest, so they were able to do this kind of joke, intended to be made public at a fitting moment afterward in order to expose Adolph´s ignorance / humiliate him / power play, without themselves getting accused of conspiring. In my case, though, this kind of mobbing conspiracy is more of a problem, because, I´m not a politician, this kind of conspiracy can´t be legitimate itself. This is the scene in I.G. where both parties remove each other´s potential for fathering children: I´d have to provide sufficient evidence that my suspicion is true - therefore enable the public to get the joke, haha, that guy´s a wankker. While the propaganda elite waits for the moment, ie the moment I´d have started an actual political career, then foiling this a couple years, when I´m a person of public interest, exposing the mobbing joke, etc. So, what I´m trying to say: If you want to get the people to know that 'Adolph & the nutsies' persecuted intellectuals who could prove their innocence using their connections and lawyers, then there are better options than chosing a piece of art where the reasons for Adolph´s suspicions / antipathy are less obvious than in this special case. PS: I´m not talking to you, wiki moderator - suspension of disbelief, in my situation there seemed to be no way out, so I decided to call in some third party, no such agency, to check out my paranoid schizophrenic psychosis. I´m talking to them this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.146.100 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)