Total instruments of debate

[Artur Karp]

At 23:54 2.09.1999 +0200, Koenraad Elst wrote:

>Respected Colleagues,

>Most
>pro-invasion polemicists, like Romila Thapar and Shereen Ratnagar, focus on
>alleged political connotations (not realizing that Hitler was in their own
>camp?), but beat around the bush when it comes to the hard evidence.

and

At 06:03 8.09.1999 +0200, Koenraad Elst wrote:

>bracketing someone with Hitler ("close to the Blut und
>Boden rhetoric of Nazism") does the trick well
>enough in smearing him.  Indeed, these days, it is the single worst smear
>available to smearmasters, surpassing the other stuff I've seen in this
>debate, where AIT skeptics have been called lunatics, Atlantis freaks,
>obscurantists and what not.

Am getting a bit confused - who smears and who's smeared here?

That infamous Aryan enthusiast Adolf Hitler in the role of smearing matter
(Kal Jug type of total-astra) seems to be left kinda masterless and is made
free use of by everybody around.

Some reflexions on that?

Lastly, a question that may interest also other members of the List: what
was the traditional Indian equivalent of this kind of ultimate debate
weapon(s)?


With regards,

Artur K(onrad) Karp
University of Warsaw
Poland