Well said Cofty.
The Rebel.
Freedom of speech?
by The Rebel 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Giordano
As far as the noise goes their quarters were in a secret annex that was above a business once owned by Otto Frank. "In July 1942, the family went into hiding in some concealed rooms behind a bookcase in the building where Anne's father worked. Victor Kugler, Johannes Kleiman, Miep Gies, and Bep Voskuijl were the only employees who knew of the people in hiding........... they were the "helpers" for the duration of their confinement."
Noise would not have mattered as there were people coming and going. During business hours. Nor would chopping wood nor would smoke if the building was heated by a stove.
Businesses also use a vacuum and often at night.
They survived for two years and were only discovered when an informer gave them up. There were numerous potential informers but no one was ever identified.
........ it's now considered that Otto Frank is an editor. Well that makes a bizarre argument, surely editing a book,especially a personal diary, shouldn't effect the authorship. Not unless it was co-written in my opinion.
." Otto Frank used her original diary, known as "version A", and her edited version, known as "version B", to produce the first version for publication. He removed certain passages, most notably those in which Anne is critical of her parents (especially her mother), and sections that discussed Frank's growing sexuality. Although he restored the true identities of his own family, he retained all of the other pseudonyms.[65]
Otto Frank gave the diary to the historian Annie Romein-Verschoor, who tried unsuccessfully to have it published. She then gave it to her husband Jan Romein, who wrote an article about it, titled "Kinderstem" ("A Child's Voice"), which was published in the newspaper Het Parool on 3 April 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
In my opinion the questioning of who wrote the book is intended to discredit the book and is front and center by those who attempt to discredit the Holocaust, the millions killed, even the gas chamber's have been denied.
Of course with the internet one can now get away with all kinds of crap.
-
Vanderhoven7
I don't know what people who support "absolute" free speech mean
Should teachers and students be allowed to talk about God and support creationism in the classroom?
Should people be allowed to make libelous false accusations and ruin the reputation of innocent individuals?
I had one English professor in university who turned every text into sexual perversion and constantly used profanity. I spoke to him privately after class about his use of language prior to changing courses. His response; "What's the difference if I say copulate or f**k?"
-
freddo
Why do those who want to discredit the authenticity of what Anne Frank wrote (it wasn't a diary like a 365 page diary from WH Smith's - it was loose leaves and an autograph book) nearly always seem to have filled their minds with websites like those that come from the neo-Nazi/Hitler was misunderstood/no ovens at (insert name of camp)/Zyklon B was only ever a pesticide etc. end of the spectrum?
It's as if they think that by saying that there were ball point pen annotations on two loose leaf sheets of paper or that a vacuum was used at 12.30 daytime that the whole Holocaust falls apart. That everything at Nuremberg was a falsification against those poor Nazi's who deserve so much sympathy.
I perfectly understand the points that her father Otto may have edited things out as he and his first wife may not have been cast in a good light and that he made money by having it published. Fair enough.
But I'm happy with the work that the Dutch Institute for War Documentation did in 1986 to prove the diary authentic as to when it was written and by whom.
I'll be drawn into the silliness about the vacuum cleaning schedule and quote from the work done by Paul O'Donnell, Professor of English at the University of Lethbridge in Canada.
"... Anne is careful to note throughout her diaries that the vacuum cleaner is only run when nobody is in the building - either at night, or during the lunch hour when everybody but Otto Frank's most trusted employees are away ..."
Look at the context. The type of building, the country (Holland was well known for "hiding" Jews from the hated German invaders, almost in open sight if they were fairer skinned, more hidden if they were not, like the Franks. Unlike Catholic Eastern Europe where Germany was often preferred to Russia and where a vein of anti-Semitism ran deeper than in England, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway.)
The hiding place was "over the workshop" as in the property was a place of business a fairly noisy place due to spice mills and food processing. River traffic added to the noise. Chimneys exhausted boiler smoke and burnt waste product. The secret annex was at the back hidden by tall 4 storey buildings and apartments on all sides.
It would be difficult to distinguish where the noise of a vacuum in an apartment building might have been coming from. In the unlikely event that a passerby heard a vacuum then if he noticed it at all he would just look in the direction of a 4 storey apartment block come factory and just put it down to normal noise in a city location.
As ex-JW's and exiting-JW's we should be used to drilling down through falsehoods to get to what rings true. But if we let ourselves down by lazy thinking or let our prejudices get in the way we will not get beyond scratching the surface.
(Edited to add - Giordano posted as I was typing - he puts it better!)
-
Simon
In my opinion we can do a brief search on the Internet about the diary and come up with evidence either way.
No, one side finds evidence, the other finds an echo chamber to reinforce their original inclinations.
We're not going to be a publishing house for loony conspiracy theories or ignorant and dangerous crap trying to masquerade as legitimate research. This sort of "Anne Frank is a Fraud" crap is just as insidious as the "Sandy Hook Never Happened" nonsense IMO.
I can tell you it won't be tolerated here and that doesn't impact your free speech in any way shape or form.
-
The Rebel
Giordano have you read the diary?
In the first pages and throughout the diary we are informed of the need to remain silent, particularly during the day as employees in the factory downstairs were not to be trusted, and were not in on the secret of those in hiding. So noice clearly did matter. And yet everyday at 1130 they vacuumed with a 1940s vacuuming cleaner. Well even Otto Frank when challenged on this fact had to admit it was absurd.
Now how about the building they were hiding in being sold,and a surveyor coming round to value the property. and yet neither the new purchaser not the surveyor were interested in looking in the " secret annex"which was on the plans. This is something that should be challenged, because it makes for suspense in a story, but it is also very odd the surveyor and purchaser of the building were not interested in seeing the secret annex.
My comments are based on my having read the book.
Why do you think to mention Otto Frank's contribution to the book, is to discredit the holocaust? Particularly as " Otto Frank" in 2016 has been credited with co-authorship by the publishers and " The Anne Frank foundation". And Having read The Death Brigade, by Leon Wells, I know the holocaust was real. Furthermore I have known holocaust survivors, and I would have no problem voicing my opinion about the diary with them, were they today in good health and alive.
The Rebel.
-
cofty
Should teachers and students be allowed to talk about God and support creationism in the classroom? - Vander
No absolutely not.
Teachers are in a position of authority over children who do not have the capacity to refute the lies of creationists.
Should people be allowed to make libelous false accusations and ruin the reputation of innocent individuals?
No.
I'm not sure anybody is asking for "absolute" free speech. All freedoms are limited to the extent that they do not harm the freedoms of others - the freedom of children not to be lied to by teachers, and the freedom of everybody not to have their reputation destroyed by slander.
-
Giordano
Giordano have you read the diary? No I havn't. Hence I am a little weak on what time they vacuumed.
However, I did about two hours of research today because your darn post got me interested LOL! I wanted to see if in any way Otto Frank co authored or in fact wrote the book. Since the diaries are in her hand writing, which was confirmed by letters she previously sent to family and friends, no one has questioned that she wrote the diaries.
Your mention of adding her father's name to the book made me curious once again. It turns out you are correct. However the reason is interesting.
http://www.history.com/news/anne-franks-diary-now-has-co-author-extended-copyright
Seventy years after the death of Anne Frank, her famous diary is getting a co-author—her father. The decision to list Otto Frank as a co-writer will extend the European copyright on “The Diary of Anne Frank,” due to expire at the end of the year, by another 35 years. The move, however, has stirred considerable controversy.
The book was expected to gain an even larger readership after January 1, 2016, when it was due to pass into the public domain in Europe since 70 years had passed since the author’s death. However, the New York Times reports the Swiss nonprofit foundation that holds the diary’s copyright is naming Otto Frank as its co-author to ensure that the copyright on the diary’s first published version will remain in force until 2050, seven decades after his death in 1980. The decision will have no bearing on the diary’s copyright in the United States, which will still end in 2047, 95 years after its original publication in the country.
Yves Kugelmann, a trustee with the Anne Frank Fonds, the nonprofit established by Otto Frank in 1963 to protect his daughter’s legacy, told the New York Times that legal experts consulted by the foundation over the previous six years have concluded that the editing, merging and trimming of entries by Anne’s father “created a new work” worthy of it's own copyright. “He merged them, he cut them and he changed them. So he created a new book,” Kugelmann told Canada’s Globe and Mail.
It's apparent from the article that the Foundation is trying to keep it's income going.
The Rebel............ one can argue this both ways.
-
The Rebel
Giordano, thank you very much for taking so many hours to research my questions.
May I also suggest the legal experts consulted by the Anne Frank foundation are being very liberal with the statement " We have concluded that the editing, merging and trimming of entries by Anne's father " created a new work" worthy of its copyright." He merged them he, cut them and he changed them, so he created a "new book"
I would answer the above:-
A) A diary is a very personal possession, it can never be created in to a new book with co-authorship by a third party.
B) Legally unless a book has been changed very dramatically it can't be co-authored, otherwise all editors that merge and trim an authors words can be credited with creating a new book.
The Rebel.
-
Simon
Thank god there are people like you, willing to use your freedom and valuable arm-chair time to make sure that no survivors of the (probably faked) holocaust are able to misrepresent the slightest detail of anything that happened so that the Nazis are not treated unfairly. I think we can all agree that you're doing such an important job trying to discredit those dirty jews and their ever so slight lies and expose the truth about who exactly stapled the pages together.
(end sarcasm)