Talk:Ludwig Kaas/Archive 3

The Catholic Church, Kaas and General Mediation (Apology)
The MegaMemex information is by no means all that has been constantly cite. I refer to these questions here  as  simplest, not complete.


 * We could start by using goodwill here on this page about Kaas . Now ,the MegaMemex timeline [] quite clearly quotes Lewy as its source for some, but not all the movements of Kaas . I have quoted these on the Pius XII article, they seem to be in good faith and certainly show that Kaas seems to have been dancing a jig between Hitler and the vatican . Indeed they seem to show  the quid pro quo evolution . You had access to Lewy and attacked  me for misreading lewy. I only claimed the timeline statements . Are they wrong ? Do I need to break into the Memex  and ask them ? Why should you deny(in our correspondence) that Kaas became close to Pacelli which  they state in a search of MegaMemex under his name  that he did become so , from 1925, when he became Secretary to Cardinal Pacelli ? I consider that there is an effective gloss at present on this article , and that your denials of close relations between Pacelli and Kaas are at variance with the facts . I note that you do not show the secretayship from 1925 . In good will I determine that you have purposely  excluded this , as you have excluded the MegaMemex  determination of secrecy concerning his meeting with papen in Munich . They quote  that Papen tried to evade the real reason for  his journey to Rome , and this seems at variance with the tone of the article  as constructed . There seems to me to be an unwillingness to allude to that which in any way supports the deep suspicions in several histories concerning the quid pro quo from the Enabling Act to the Concordat . This sems to me to be willing  unwillingness  and to disallow reasonable  balance . You will note  that the approbation at the Fulda conference , included , along with  Kaas' stated views of Hitler, and Pius XI stated view to Papen only a few days apart , and the  birthday telegram  to Hitler from Kaas - not the Pope (though there may have been one from  him as Head of State)  do not appear here and have been denied elsewhere , as well as here, if I remember right.

May I ask you why you Str1977 disallow these several connections -all of which serve to confirm the letter ( papal instruction to the centre Party of may 1932 ) and would you do this here under the even handed gaze of Robert McClenon ?


 * See my apology on Hitler's Pope . I was wiki-wrong to call you an agent of the vatican . I am human and you through your church have deeply shocked me : I am revolted that IT has got away with this and that IT still remains a force  and a  State in world affairs, whilst un-accountable  both internally and externally . Interference in the American democratic process, in Europe ,  who knows where  and when in history  , in peoples' lives  today through IT 's moral condemnation  of their private actions when facing  their  resulting death (AIDS  is all contrary to IT's own  stated LAW and certainly to the hypocrisy of IT's actions (to this day in  sanctifying  Pacelli)  . I apologise to you Str1977 for allowing myself  to use language associating you personally with the culpability of IT the church . I think you provoked me  and I will have to add some  points  in my defence , as I cannot  it seems ask you directly whether or not  the following applies to you - or any specific wikipedia user.


 * I ask anyone to answer whether or not it is a fact that the old media (such as Tv and radio) reported  the conclusion of the vatican special 2005 spring conference prior to the passing of  Pope John Paul II , held to study the impact etc of the new media ?   Whether if the wikipedia  was or was not named as a part of this  new media ,  it is other than true  that the searchable nature and mirroring of the wikipedia   contributed  to  the  Roman Catholic Church's concluding  decision   : that indeed all possible efforts should be made to counter their recognition of this danger to  IT ? That there was or was not  an instruction  to the members'' of IT to involve themselves  as much as necessary to try and reverse the new media's downside effects on  IT ?  True or false-?  and  not off-topic  , as I  put the POV tag here.


 * Now I have agreed for mediation for my part on the pages specified for earlier RfC,  I accept the terms  and I finally understand  Robert McClenon . I shall expect arbitration  if there is not the serious acceptance of cited sources that I have referred to  throughout . For my part , Robert McClenon  please  seek Str1977 agreement to mediation  throughout . Lastly  ,I did not understand your reply to my question about your user history  being so brief .Famekeeper 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for summary
Please be specific in identiying what statements in this article are considered to be non-neutral POV. Robert McClenon 16:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
I have posted a formal Request for Mediation concerning any neutrality and POV issues about this article and related articles. Robert McClenon 17:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I posted an informal one at the top of this page a lifetime ago. Pop ups ate my summary- I did it word by word, revisionsit bog-rot it is. I'm tired and have been calling for arbitration for months. I did as you suggested Robert McClenon and wrote up a Pope Hitler Holocaust Conspiracy  article  page -it is vandal stuff and dis-allowed. Must be the only way you can join Hitler and Pope is like that and not Pope's Hitler. Ill try that -it wants to be short. However the allegations will still have to be part of all pages, or perhaps none whatever , like before I made this awful smell  in the land of soap. If I'm wrong, mediate , arbitrate and judge me , then shoot me off the wiki , and I'll go round the side. You guys at the top table- y'all can't control a randomly operated  ISP numbering, now can you ? And if you can, you can't control illicit mirrors , now can you ? Can someone answer the questions  re;vatican new media Conference ?Famekeeper 23:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Advocation by FK
Before Summary advocates farewell .Well, Str1977- I think you win. The simplest worked the best -your user button, home page ammunition has worked a treat. I have only myself to blame for reacting to your highly objective politique. I recognise that the casuistry and casuistry in the most creative subtle sense, without becoming too  denomination orietated , or your education simply I could say, reveals in me a clear inability to recognise good faith. Of course your un-bending and un-remitting counter action to any and evreything I wrote  was  too much, for me. I think I beat you on the canonicals, on the soul, I showed you up too, and today in the last writhings of my supposedly POV mind- again I won. I recognised upon my Pope's Hitler- even you could see the logic of that name -article, there I was using your quote  about soul - and what do I see but that at 11.15 or so in the morning Kaas is proffering no suggestion towards any action. I forget the exact words ,and we both know to what I refer, the disparity between that in the official record/report and his handing over the Party vote  in the Opera House, at whatever time, a few hours at most. You are as ever the only person with any inkling or concern in here other than myself  about this subject. We both know this subject to be the single central encompassing moment of modern history. The political is obvious. The moral I have forced you to your knees on - admit that or don't, I no longer require anything .The psychological is the really interesting , as the moment  of the suicide is of such an expanding nature. This fracture of the soul, referred to twice on that  day as I  on this day sourced ( in the speech  the brave Social Democrat defying the Fuhrer) together with Kaas' option , in your opinion or necessity, but against my normal  run-of -the-mill sources, option for fraction of soul over fraction  of ''party , there is the psychological centre.

Poor STR1977, I have  and unto here given you as hard a time as I can. Oh, not the silly loose epithetical aspersions, I mean I have had you worried  for your cause. For your psychological balance. Even at this second as you read this for the first time you fear not an epithet, but what does this monster of argument now lift to skewer me with - where am I weak , how  does this psychological  worry  not risk to show even now a chasm to up-end my  calm and order of acceptance and comforting assured belief. I know you will publicly bat that back as like a fly off your cuff, but I also know that you even now this second wonder just what can be up? silly flamekeeper, with his stridency and indignation , he's easy prey. Where does this psychology take us- even though you guess aright that my knowledge of psychology and estimation of character wouldn't cover the head of a pin ? It is my power of unforeseen writing, my complete lack of a recognisable education that has therefore not harnessed my brain to any recognised norms of intellectual civility and  make-peacery. Where you have wondered is the allegiance, where doth this meagre monster fall ? Is he yet felled?

Can I or can I not even at this late stage discover the vital chink to rend asunder the belief ? You who have seen into this my mind so publicly and, we , yet so equally anonymously. What of this double use of soul, what of this contradiction , OH my God, what is this ?

On the one hand you began months ago, in this interesting and productive analysis of opposing discourse(edit war to the onlookers) which we both so much relish as to cover yards of space , by saying that  goodness, realy I should understand the practicalities. Someone was going to rob my car and since I knew this, wouldn't I , like 'them simply logically (with reasoning) pre-empt the loss ?

But, God, what have I said , and why do I fear that I have given from the hand of my goodness, my God , my faith and true christianity some  flying shard of reason to assail  this  my armour ? Reason I dealt you with under Immanuel Kant, In time  another  will  as they read that know that herein you have skewered yourself. again, I spoeak giving you all the credit of your actual stated position, i assail this but only because I recognise it. The faith, the great efforts that man, that you, take to lift yourself on every level towards worth in your own requiring and elevated consciousness, this is not to attack you. I epithetically hope that you do represent the forces which I so clearly finger - and it is sadder if your are as I feel, alone  , in this. I hope not, I hope that you are that billionth catholic , the one who is sent by his Lord  precisely to face this battle. of course, even more romantic , would be that you represent the might of christ, or at least that CDF office of eight  scribing polymaths.

I hope to think that you do not personally think of me as a ghoul that comes to rob the sanctity of the dead. I ask, though , that we reach in there to the tombs of our conscience , back to the very bones of our selves, to our forefathers and their ewnds, to where  bullets and lances could no longer drive them - on every side , back to the lost gaiety of their children's childhoods ,  seeped out with their blood into the earth. Here in this earth to which we all have contributed this blood we two look with our vision and what do we see ? You say the reasons of expedience, and the simple defence of the  blood - the population who would otherwise have suffered. These are both sound reasons. The first, in short , is the morally weak , the canonically prohibited -no, you agreed on a basis of if it were the case. But the defence of the populace as reason, wereit so, were it the populace  it were so - but it is not  the populace in either canonical terms or the populace in social terms. A part of  the populace at the very best. You claimed no more.

Yours is not the first martyr that I come to rob. I take no pleasure in pulling down the temples of relief, whether of a family or of a nation or of a church. When the martyrship is of itself an injustice, when the martyr  stoked his own bundle of combustible effects and threw himself into the fire in blindness of wilful un-reason , unreason beacuse tainted from the goodness of true reason - that martyrship  has only the validity of a warm blanket upon a starving , morally dying , victim  of himself. the consciousness of reason is the key to our whole being in this consciousness.

The car was going to be stolen and destroyed anyway. Why not save a fraction of the loss. This is Kaas, in his own words. Yes, one could say , if one were talking about an object 'yes. but this is not an object, which is why Kaas' fellow  Bruning  spoke of treacherous ACT. If it were a moveable object but this is an immovable politico-moral force, a position  , a conscience to be fought and defended  as it was the  conscience  of the populace.

Again, it is only to you that I speak  as it is only you who understand, only you who carefully weigh the consequences of these words. Until the end of this communication to you who counts, I shall have to append my summary. don't worry, for that is easy enough on your article - i see no likelihood of exceeding the hitherto analysed WP   formulae  and norms at all.

To you however who completely understands the issues at stake before the fires of penalty, come these reasons. not reasons a mediator could seek, evidences of POV , we are beyond that and facing these fire issues of moral values. i take you at your word as representing, I believe at any rate that you are specifically informed of interior moral norms to the church-you have always responded with commendable speed and exactitude , bt anyway, I hope that you are still this moment willing and brave enough to represent your inner core values and stated beliefs. Kaas is where we started and Kaas is where I feel now that I end. I feel I have nearly done what is required of me : I come here to the centre of the chasm, where my own psychological dragon awaits me too.

The choices of Kaas were an alternative as you explained and sourced. The psychological conditions  we have not agreed upon because you have hoped to evade them. Kaas wasn't an old friend, doesn't get billed with pacelli at all, really. League of Nations sounds just the job, a big show with plenty of space between them, as the article engagingly portays. The bullying is  too late frankly interesting to the bone  breaking FK sleuth  in me but remains in my mind with the cuddly homesickness  as pieces de resistance  ,that sing alongside internet  eulogies to Pius XII.

When I say that you win I mean only that I do not see the upgrading of even wikipedians to the broad consequences of Ludwig Kaas. The literal bites on both the sleuth bone-hunter level and on the byte level of patient consciousness, forever narrow us down to two. I do sorrow though at the loss to us both which your at times purely party type ripostes kept me, where the constant necessity was to the outside third , listening parties. The necessity to paint in such stricly primary colours of repetition and counter were as boringly political to the out-sider as any dry debate  could possibly be. Its at least a temporary respite for you  and all who agree with you out there (the other Billion )that I should  stick to allowing a mediation of the impossible. No organisation would wish to respond to such a billion headed force. Any established figure would hesitate before the legions of the faith, and I think it might just be better to let this  peter (!) out  in terms of pure complaint. Hence at lat I can talk un-inhibited by the need to carry my numbers, a sleuth of the anonymous wiki nightime- like invisibility.

That which appears to me to be remarkable is that the very precise and some little barbed reference you made to one's (mine, I mean) own level of accedance to moral values and precepts in my own  life, remarkably I now turn on myself. The moral argument, which is to reason that source you quote about soul and fraction , and which is your justification  , very much strikes me in my own  pitfalls of hypocrisy. You here are right, this is the dragon I cannot slay , introduced  within my breast. the very real questioning that you have suffered unto yourself, and in which I cannot  say that I have eeven joined second-hand. The reasoning for Kaas, and  yet the treachery for  Bruning and the Social Democrat  are at any rate with Bruning , only bridged by the absent but promised and un-received letter of guarantee. In reasoning I can go only so far as the ownership of the thing that was passed away, even without that guarantee. I will come back to that now but I may say that I  only now begin to feel the moral crush  psychologically expanding from this suicide of democracy. The possibly equallly remarkable could be that you yourself  have felt  those  your own   arguments turn  on yourself and upon your  moral  landscape. I perhaps at any rate figure this from  what I do see, even though it should incur upon me the arguments of hypocrisy of  my psychological nature.

The values in which Kaas as both politician and  churchman dealt are those of indivisible reason, not as you or he , rather , claimed  , divided. The nature of that which was handed to Adolf Hitler  by Kaas was  not something  as I say moveable, it did not belong to any person, but to all those of the populace  who in their hearts or in their reason claimed it. It is of the same nature in human abstraction as the terms of value that are reflected in the precepts of religion, and all the more so in this particular catholic  political party. These are indivisible per se by expediency  as the shared truth of their vision  was common to that populace. No vote of reason for attachment to the Nazi Party was written into it's common and actual popular  mandate.

For me the loss of the case resides in my growing and re-inforced indgnation at the  WP, and my weakened indignation at the expediency shown in 1933. I have become smaller myself because I lose my belief in the populace  and in the popular,  because  of the  WP expediency  values  now in force(see summary below). The similarly populous expediency  which you yourself  seemed to recognise within  this history, always was lost to me.

You may or may not weaken in your reckoning of morals against expediency -I offered the proof which you can take or leave as your conscience desires. For me the loss is the weakening of a will to advance us. Drop it ! I am told. To advance us by correction - this here in WP seems to be more a question of retaining that history which has  already been written, from being popularly lost.

The good faith sunders under the inability of reason, leaving the force of the user button on minds attuned to the simplistic answer .You have  been lawyerly in capturing  the isolation that  my indignation created for myself.

Nevertheless, the political and moral indivisibilty  of the shared immovable word is and was  a bond of value. The infamy referred to by Bruning  before the meeting of the Assembly , the use of the word soul by Social Democracy  within the Assembly , Kaas' own reflection upon soul - this indivisible compact  is  the compact of the word with reason .Anyone can see in the discourse  that it  echoes  originally out from the very church itself. This is what you have in which  to wrap your  conscience, a bond of conscience  in which you set yourself to live , the value that you offer for both youreslf and others  within a populace of  belief  in it (the billion).

I in my screeches for humanity, my claims , now have no more to wrap myself in than this my experience of its very  muteness and silence and expedient rule ( the  WP policy). The humanity I  so vaunted  itself desires no illumination  but, I say the  truth you vaunted , by expediently keeping to no  true word ,  needs for itself  no humanity. We both lose here at this my  end. Thankyou .Famekeeper 11:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Open Short Summary
It appears that I am ordered  to provide a  spec. on the case and it to be as brief as possible.


 * WP-Minority view doesn't belong in WP regardless of whether it is true or not, or regardless of proof , and  'Majority viewpoint should be easy to substantiate from reference texts' . 'If only the  favourable (or the unfair) facts of a point of view are shown , the article will still be neutral'


 * WP- 'Un-biased characterisation of disputes'. 'Explanation which encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold those beliefs and practices, but on account of how such beliefs and practices came into place'.


 * WP- 'we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views'. 'Fair characterisation describes but does not advocate '  . 'Belief is objective fact' . I 'describe or I imply, insinuate or subtly massage'.

That an article is accepted or removed or reverted or or not, is not a definition of its relative POV/NPOV worth. It reflects the possible perception of its (majority) editors. This article, apart from omissions that are proveable , does not err in substance nor statement but that is not to say that it does not almost indistinguishably aver to a subtlety of error.

To both myself, and I would say , to its author , this article is clear in its editorial view or aim. This aim may not however be clear to anyone else (the majority), and the nuances of tone ( massage) , which for both us , Str1977 and Famekeeper , build a clear , if opposite , picture - will be to Robert McClenon  say , completely   opaque.

This is not to say that I could not choose to analyse each adjectival qualification, and reveal to the genuinely enquiring ,  the exact nature of the  article's overall POV. I must leave it now to the editor/ reader as under the WP order, to take from it what they will  , cognizant as their conscience of majority  allows them to be of my engorged  references  and discussion.

This page signals, as so many do  to me , but maybe not at all to you. I say on my user page, that when everything looks  good and looks nice , that that is the greatest  moment and signal of danger .Famekeeper 13:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust
Conscience intervenes me ,again, to ask Robert McClenon to visit the dubious discussion on the Holocaust's  "Jews" section. Does he expect that 'all this matter should be dropped ? Also, I see that nothing can be transferred from the Pope's Hitler Page to his suggested location for complicities. There is always arbitration, but mediation should be generally posted by now , right ?

At present the  Famekeeper  history  is the  the 'cited sources' for the multi-linked  subject. I try to drop as much as I can, and  if the WP is simply a majority of  editors against a mjority of sources , it is clear that reader fatigue  determines  accuracy.

The Holocaust connection is the anti-semitism as the under-lying, but not single, motive  of for the Kaas arranged  ''quid pro quo betwwn , Pope Pius XI , his  lieutenant Pope Pius XII and Hitler. I begin to wonder at the suicide of Timothy Mason, the holocaust historian .Famekeeper 12:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Reader fatigue
Famekeeper is absolutely correct that reader fatigue is a limitation to the development of the Wikipedia. However, what has actually happened is that the minority, Famekeeper, has fatigued everyone else so that no one else has the energy to discuss how to improve the pages in question, because the talk pages are being filibustered. I have repeatedly asked him to identify specific areas in the articles where sourced criticisms should be added.


 * I had everywhere inserted relevant historic comment , sourced on talk , and everywhere been reverted . Even today . I even 'rev'  back to myself , but it gets stupid , now, doesn't it ? These are one way criticisms  And I note the tone    in  "You asked for it. You got it''.  Sounds  physical . I am sorry if I have so alienated you , but I am the one forced to the repetition . I could just hit the revert button.

Anyway, you did ask for such a page, and when I created it, you would not use it. Robert McClenon 00:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "You asked for it. You got it." was an advertising slogan.  If Famekeeper thought that it was insulting, I regret that.
 * What I told Famekeeper to drop was the irrelevant soapbox discussion of excommunication.

Robert McClenon 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Explanation which encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold those beliefs and practices, but on account of how such beliefs and practices came into place' . It is motivation  and far from irrelevant and is part of the explanation , given ,as required  ,to Str1977 . Your  interjections are effective POV , which I do not accept . Famekeeper 23:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

FK explanation
Famekeeper writes, apparently as to the self-excommunication argument: "'Explanation which encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold those beliefs and practices, but on account of how such beliefs and practices came into place'"  I have tried over and over again to understand this argument, and I do not understand it. Simply stating that your argument has been made is not the Wikipedia way. Please explain in terms that I can understand, in two paragraphs, or 'drop it' (that particular argument, but not the whole issue).
 * I am pushed by Robert McClenon to, he wished it to be within two paragraphs , enunciate the relevance of excommunication to the events of 32-33 , but particularly to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas . I feel this should also relate to BXVI , as legal superior.


 * Going on the premise that the famous journalist Edgar Ansel Mowrer was no liar, there slithers from the pages of his latter-day round up of the world's affairs ( published in 1969 ) the clear report that  the Catholic Church tried to engineer the ascendance of Hitler, for the same reasons that appear to surface in Writer John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope : the defeat of Communism . The horrors of  communist Bolshevism to this Pope are well documented along with a  less documented , John Cornwell  investigation  of the  natural ( ie traditional)  Holy See tendency towards anti-semitism , one which was shared  downwards to the vatican's influential Secretary of State Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli . Mowrer report  was that of an  instruction ( the Holy' Fathers desire) to  the influential  and unusually  , in Weimar Republic terms , consistent Catholic Centre Party Germany  - to support  making Hitler Chancellor  as a bulwark against the rise of German Communism  . This report  stands alone as a direct accusation , whereas  histories of the era simply remark that there seemed to be a clear reversal of Centre independance  from Nazism .  For example , earliest  reference is made to this reversal in  the analysis of The  Saar (The Saar was a very small country  existing under the League of Nations )  by Margaret Lambert, Faber 1934 p 259 . " The Catholic Centre party in the Saar had been vogourously attacking the Nazis in its paper , the landeszeitung . However on March 28th 1933 , there appeared an article strongly advocating a return to Germany . Attacks on Hitler gradually disappeard and  the Saar Centre party  following the example of the corresponding German party came into line with the Nazis , though disapproving of many of their actions . Although the Concordat negotiated between the Catholic Church and the National Socialists in Germany does not apply to the Saar , the fact of such an agreement had a determining influence on the Centre party's attitude there . So,here within  a few months there was published notice  that the Centre had been  , despite its  own  longstanding moral disapproval , obviated politically  by an agreement between the Holy See and the  Nazis . Her remarks are evrywhere repeated as equally applicable to the german Centre party  .This conclusion is echoed through all the history books  and  , being based on  fact , is a majority viewpoint  and undisputed . However here on the wikipedia , this fact is strangely forgotten . It appears neither in the Weimar Republic nor in Nazi Germany , and in the Nazi Timeline all that is said is that on March 23 1933 Hitler establishes dictatorial power . Thus far I am alone in considering this remarkable , however it leads me to this posting.


 * This quoted source from1934 is important in that it clearly raised the overall Centre (which is to say the politically catholic)  moral collapse . Mowrer's  report  is of the direct papal wish  sent  down for the Centre to assist Hitler to power in every way . This wish, which for a catholic is therefore an instruction , was  allegedly passed  from  Pacelli to  the leader and chairman of the Centre in Berlin Monsignor Ludwig Kaas  , who communicated it to  a  leadership meeting  . I have  sourced  many histories  which confirm Margaret Lambert's  text  and I have done this as necessary to move on to the concommittant resulting issues . In purely catholic terms I have had to give notice to the catholic code of legality  which relates to this abandonment of morals , since  the instructing  of the party  concurs with the  stated opinion of welcome given by Pius XI to the Fuhrer  ( quoted  through  German Foreign Secretary von Papen  ) . In shortest possible summary , it would historically appear un-disputed that  a successful destabilising  anti-moral quid pro quo was organised  by the Holy See  . I point out that this is against the tenets of the Bible ( romans 3.8 ) the successors  of the Christ  ,  who thus successfully advised  an expedient ( anti-Communist) political  abandonment of moral judgement  . The effects of this  are known , but this origin for the power given to the Nazis , who  ably represented all that was against the moral order , is less well known or understood . This may be because  people naturally like to accept  that those who  claim to be good , and who claim to adhere  through a legal code( " Divine Law in  the WP's  ecclesiastical canons ) to the indisputable goodness  of Jesus Christ ,  are  good  .  In actual fact the claim  published even then , is that  this was all to do with the Holy See achieving its Concordat with , not Germany , but the National Socialists (Nazis) . An acceptance of this historical reality  entails the complete up-ending of wishful history . This would  begin with the Catholic Church  rectifying its own legal problems  that arise from its part in the up-ending of the moral order . In brief , they have legal means  to categorise this  under automatic transgression : the transgression  incurred  the penalty automatically at the time  etc (see discussions  etc) . Canonically  it is not a problem , except that the orthodoxy of the church finds it legally difficult to admit to papal error  and the admission would open  further internal canonical contradiction , and analysis of the direction of christianity as led  by  Popes . If it were you or me , we would be automatically excommunicating ourselves  if we  against  romans   choose to further an evil  in order to promote a good . The church's laws are of course used to advise the adherents  in such matters daily and everywhere still  , and the laws are the same laws, which unfortunately , were broken  in 1932 instructions  and  in 1933 negotiations  . Aside from such internal  rectification  , of course there is nothing that can be done , except to  learn that  even the  non -political self appointed  powers  of the Church must be watched like hawks  and their political effect  brought into line with their own ( hypocritcal ) actions  ,  that morals mean something in terms of  our political  world  ,  that appeasement  cannot sacrifice the moral order  without the greatest cost ,  that world history as you see it is  unclear  without this understanding  because  all regions and societies ( world war , cold war ) were affected   and  that there is a valuable lesson  here  for the establishment of  future  world law .Famekeeper 11:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you and I are both allowed to express POV on talk pages. But we should try to work toward NPOV. You have never yet provided me with a short summary of what the POV issues are.

I do not think that you know how to provide a short summary of issues. I suggest that you go back to the Village pump and ask for a mentor or an advocate. I think that, if you want to take part in Wikipedia, you need to change your style very significantly.

If you simply want to state your viewpoint, I suggest that you create your own web site. Robert McClenon 00:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I shall redo the actual Kaas  article critique, is there a mediator ?Famekeeper 11:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)