You can write this antisemite journalist an email if you want:
anjaosang@aol.com

Troy,

You "don't care if she ran up to them shouting out the worst anti-German propaganda ever heard by the ears of man, while spitting in their faces and kicking them in the balls"?

So spewing hate speech, spitting on someone, and causing some of the most excruciating physical pain possible along with possible reproductive damage is okay?

"I told him I love this necklace and that I was not Jewish, but have a lot of Jewish friends."

According to her, he asked her why she was wearing the necklace. Her answer doesn't ring true. How hard would it have been to just say that she thought it was a cool necklace? In her own words, she mentioned that she wasn't jewish (why mention that?) and that she had a lot of jewish friends (again, why mention that?)

According to her, he flicked her nose. She slapped him. She escalated the violence.

In this hostile situation, did she stay inside where she would have been safe with a crowd? No. Did she wait until at least her friend was with her to go outside? No.

"I got outside, and buttoned my coat and within one split second, I looked back towards the door thinking it was Chris that was coming out, but it was the bearded German guy and his fist hit my face with such an enormous force that I hit the ground like lead. I have never been hit so hard before in my life."

"I was crying and half of my face was ( still is) swollen like a balloon."

"My upper lips looks like Mick Jaggers kisser."

Umm, look at her picture on her site. This is the hardest she was ever hit? She hit the ground like lead? Does it look more like a light tap a man might give to defend himself after a drunken woman "chased him , and jumped him and hit him several times then broke his glasses"?

Oh, and that terrible German reporter. Tsk, tsk. What rotten creep reporter would actually do her JOB and get BOTH sides of a story? My goodness, the reporter ACTUALLY had the audacity to include quotes from the tourist. What is the world of journalism coming to?

Here is what probably happened (assuming anything substantial happened at all):

1. She was drunk after a hard night of karaoke. Notice that she felt the need to emphasize HIS alleged drunkenness. This was done to cover her own inebriation.

2. They were standing by her coat because they thought she was attractive. This is why they offered her a drink.

3. She was being a pushy, b*tchy princess while trying to get her coat. They may not have moved immediately because they were still trying to impress her.

4. She suffered from being dumped by a German boyfriend plus may have picked up anti-German views from her jewish friends.

5. After the altercation, she cooked up the 'jewish' story to cover for her embarrasing behavior.

Her follow-up doesn't make sense. Why would THE Germans hate her if Stefan is convicted? How infantile does your mind have to be to make that assumption?

A slacker high school student could write better than this drivel.

Where's the link to the newspaper article?

Troy,

Sadly, for using the language you've used here, you're more likely to be banned. (I'm just going to censor your post, though. But sorry, those are the rules and they apply to everyone.) It's not against the rules to advocate a view I find abhorrant.

Though I understand your disgust. Let's hope this fellow is not representative of the general sentiment in Germany these days, as he seems to love conspiracy theories -- the same trap used to ensnare Germany people the last time around.

Johnathan's arguments are clearly absurd:

(a) Since Germans, and people from Frankfurt in particular, are all nice law-and order loving people (they'd never riot after a football match, for example), we don't have to think about the huge bruise these men put on her face. Couldn't have happened. According to this fellow, all Germans must be the same, and good. (Unlike my worldview where there are good and bad people from each country.)

(b) The bruised "little girl" (note the I-will-hurt-you overtones) did it all as a plot to "play mind games for the sake of American readers." It's not possible she was just a chick in a club who was attacked by some stranger. She deliberately lured those Germans into hitting her as an evil plot against the entire nation of Germany!

(c) The paper was "left-wing", therefore it couldn't possibly be biased, anti-semitic, anti-American in any way. My reaction: Hahahahahahahahah!!! Right!!!! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard.

(d) See? More evidence that she went to the karaoke bar just impress Jews and make Germans looks bad: "Did you want to show off to 'your Jewish friends' how anti-German you are?"

Yes, always trying to help the Jews at German expense, and all Jews must be anti-German -- a page right out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

You've answered Tom's points pretty well, but I want to highlight just a few comments:

According to her, he flicked her nose. She slapped him. She escalated the violence.

Hate to tell you, but 'assault' begins with touching someone else in an aggressive fashion. Sure, she shouldn't have slapped him back (and she shouldn't) but as Troy points out, we weren't raise to pound the daylights out women when they slap us. Real men don't behave that way.

Her answer doesn't ring true. How hard would it have been to just say that she thought it was a cool necklace?

Check out the twisted logic here: (a) the only reason one could ever wear a star of David is because it was "cool" -- it was impossible for her to actually have Jewish friends, as she stated, and (b) since she clearly must have lied about her reason for owning such a necklace, she clearly had it coming.

Why would THE Germans hate her if Stefan is convicted? How infantile does your mind have to be to make that assumption?

I don't know: How infantile is it that I actually do have Germans logging onto my blog claiming a little lady from New York lured some poor defenseless men into attacking her just to make all Germans look evil to Americans?

I would say that's a pretty infantile idea too, but it seems to be happening.

--- quote---
(a) Since Germans, and people from Frankfurt in particular, are all nice law-and order loving people (they'd never riot after a football match, for example), we don't have to think about the huge bruise these men put on her face. Couldn't have happened. According to this fellow, all Germans must be the same, and good. (Unlike my worldview where there are good and bad people from each country.)
---quote---
Well, you may abhor my view, but at least have the decency to quote me correctly. I never said "all" Germans were peace loving, just the overwhelming majority. You seem to have taken a fancy to my "football fans" - I reiterate: How many of those do you think have the means to fly to New York?
And again you misquote me with a thinly veiled insult to my intelligence. "this fellow thinks all Germans... blah blah". You have no way of knowing what I think unless I express it, which in this case I didn't.

---quote---(b) The bruised "little girl" (note the I-will-hurt-you overtones) did it all as a plot to "play mind games for the sake of American readers." It's not possible she was just a chick in a club who was attacked by some stranger. She deliberately lured those Germans into hitting her as an evil plot against the entire nation of Germany!
---quote---
Clarify please; what do you mean by "I-will-hurt-you overtones"? Are you suggesting that I go around hurting little girls or is that just your immediate connotation? The thought hadn't even entered my mind. Secondly, what I disliked is the story and the way it put the blame on an entire nation of alleged anti-semites and bigots. However, it is futile to argue without facts. If this was covered by German papers it must have been covered by American ones as well - any hint where to find some source? Thirdly: Trying to create a fait accompli in no way adds to the veracity of the initial post. Where you present during the incident?

---quote---
(c) The paper was "left-wing", therefore it couldn't possibly be biased, anti-semitic, anti-American in any way. My reaction: Hahahahahahahahah!!! Right!!!! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard.
---quote---
So we're equating anti-semitism with anti-americanism now? How convenient. But I shall grant you this: German left wing papers tend to be very critical of the US, whether rightly so or not is for everyone to judge on his own. Besides some ultra-nutty survivalist scumbags, and sadly those exist in all nations, I'm not aware of _any_ German newspaper that is even slightly anti-semitic. Is the fact that Germany did not join "The Coalition Of The Willing" still hurting your patriotic pride? Why else shift the topic to anti-america?

---quote---
(d) See? More evidence that she went to the karaoke bar just impress Jews and make Germans looks bad: "Did you want to show off to 'your Jewish friends' how anti-German you are?"
---quote---
As mentioned above, that exactly is the problem: no evidence. Now if would do me the favour of reading between the lines a bit, what is your impression on the tone of the initial article?

You see, contrary to what people have assumed about me, I'm neither a brutaliser of women, nor a Nazi, I objected to the conjectures about Germany, that's all.

Tim,

"Sure, she shouldn't have slapped him back (and she shouldn't) but as Troy points out, we weren't raise to pound the daylights out women when they slap us. Real men don't behave that way."

Umm, Tim? You're forgetting that the tourist had a side as well. Remember that she "chased him , and jumped him and hit him several times then broke his glasses."

"Check out the twisted logic here:"

Tim, the only thing twisted are your assumptions. You can have multiple reasons for wearing jewelry. The point was, and still is, that the 'jewish info' was not necessary nor was it asked for. Would she have been embarrassed to have someone think she was jewish? Is that why she added the *I'm not jewish* part? Also, it smacks of a false addition to the story (assuming this was a real event).

See if you can follow this:

He tries to determine if she is jewish.

She answers negatively. He hits her.

She answers positively. He hits her.

What would have been the point of him asking in the first place?

"...the Germans will all HATE me..."

Again, what infantile mind would even think to fathom that the alleged actions of one drunk would represent an ENTIRE NATION?

Troy,

You're confusing what she alleged concerning the tourist with a poster in here. When you resort to such foul language and say that someone else in here 'disgusts' you (due to an assumption on your part), your arguments aren't going to carry as much weight. Try to conduct yourself in a better manner.

"Get it through your skull, she was one woman being intimidated by three **** who obviously had no problem mistreating a woman..."

"She went outside to get away from the men who were attacking her..."

According to her, it was ONE guy.

*I said "no, it was just that one guy!"*

"She went outside..."

Yes, she went outside. Did you read the part where she said she tried to go back into the bar?

"I was crying and trying to get into the bar..."

Was this a case of letting the truth out? Was she going back into the bar in order to continue attacking the guy? Why go back into the bar?

"Half of her **** face is covered in bruises ------- (censored for crudeness)"

No, half of her face is NOT covered in bruises. She has, perhaps, an inch or slightly more of discoloration from the corner of her lip to her lower cheek on the right side of her face. Also, one-half of her upper lip on her right side is swollen with a slight abrasion at the bottom.

Again, this was not a beating. It is more likely to have been a case of a tourist shoving her in the face in order to stop a deranged woman that "chased him , and jumped him and hit him several times then broke his glasses."

"...the reporter wasn't giving both sides of the story, but was instead editorializing with only the man's side of the story..."

In the excerpts posted, her complaint was that the reporter included a quote from the tourist. She didn't say that nothing was quoted from her.

Troy, you're assuming that the tourist is guilty. Your logic boils down to asking why someone is defending someone else that you assume is guilty. Circular reasoning? He did it because she said he did it. Why did she say he did it? She said it because he did it.

Of course, this entire matter may be a hoax. Where is the date of the article in the German paper? Where is a scan of the article itself? Is there a web link? If this story is true, there should be TONS of articles on it in American jewish publications alone. Could you imagine Abe Foxman NOT making this headline news?

Funny that she only mentions a foreign paper that most people would not have access to.

I'm calling BS on this one. Try looking at the date it was published on her site. It was around a year-and-a-half ago. Also, try looking at her picture posted THREE days after the alleged attack.

http://drdot.blog-city.com/update_on_the_attack.htm

Just copy and paste the link to see her photo that magicaly got worse over time with damage in spots that were FINE in the first photo. Photoshop anyone?

Also, She REFUSED to go to the emergency room to get an x-ray.

"The fake ponytail I had clipped onto my head saved my life, if that wasn't there when I hit the ground, my skull may have cracked open, so let's hear it for fake hair pieces! Yeah!"

Freudian slip? Constantly mentioning 'fake'?

She would have had her skull cracked open if not for a fake ponytail? And she didn't want to get an x-ray to make sure there wasn't any damage to her skull? File under FERTILIZER.

Jonathan,

Well, you may abhor my view, but at least have the decency to quote me correctly.

A straw man argument: I didn't claim to be quoting you. (I didn't even use quote marks.) I claim that was the implication of what you were saying. And indeed, it was and is. Your argument was simply saying that people from X were like Y, thus they couldn't have done Z. That's only true if there are no exceptions to that rule.

You seem to have taken a fancy to my "football fans"...

No, I simply pointed to hooligans to show that an alleged love for "law and order" doesn't completely restrict Germans (nor the English, to be fair) from fisticuffs, as you argued.

And again you misquote me with a thinly veiled insult to my intelligence. "this fellow thinks all Germans... blah blah".

Speaking of misquotes.

You have no way of knowing what I think unless I express it, which in this case I didn't.

You implied that it was impossible for this person to have been in fight because "Germans... tend to be timid in foreign countries." I was answering your argument, as written. Again, a straw-man argument: You say I claim to know what you're thinking, when in reality I am simply responding to your writing.

But I find it funny to make such protestations, given that you have already called this woman a "spoiled brat", as though you not only knew what she thought, but indeed knew exactly how she was raised.

Funny! People can't be allowed to imply something about what you might think, but it's perfectly fine for you to offer categorical opinions of someone else's thoughts and entire childhood.

And another straw-man argument I missed before:

So it's highly unrealistic to conceive of three German tourists wealthy enough to travel to New York City solely to terrorise our little Jewish devotee.

Nobody claimed this. The claim was that someone perhaps had a bit to much to drink and hit someone -- not that the entire trip was arranged in order to pick on a single woman.

You clearly seem uncomfortable with the argument as it stands -- clearly, you seem to need to find a different charge to respond to. One can only wonder what it is about the original story which bothers you so.

Clarify please; what do you mean by "I-will-hurt-you overtones"?

You wrote:

So, little girl, you're playing mind games for the sake of American readers...

An address in this tone comes across as emphasizing that you think you have a superior size/power to the person being addressed. Since her actual physical height wasn't mentioned, it's reasonable to assume the phrasing instead reflects the way the speaker wants to think of the situation: of being physically larger or more powerful than the person he is addressing. That's happening for a reason, I expect.

If said in person, I can't help but think that any bystander would hear these as threatening, fighting words. Regardless, I don't expect you to agree with me: that was written for the other more neutral bystanders who I felt would see it and agree.

If you have chosen your words poorly, or you think a woman being addressed in such a way would not feel threatened, then you're more than welcomed to clarify.

So we're equating anti-semitism with anti-americanism now?

(1) No, you seem to have misread my sentence: you mentioned that the newspaper was left wing. You didn't explain why this was supposed to be significant, so I assume -- perhaps incorrectly -- that you meant the newspaper couldn't possibly be biased.

There might be several reasons to assume a bias in this case. One might be anti-Americanism. Another might be an antisemitic bias. In case I'd missed other possibilities, I added "or biased in any way."

By saying it couldn't be ANY of these, I did not mean they were all the same. This is normal english usage: If I say: "I am not tall, red-headed, Irish" it does not mean that "tall", "red-headed" and "Irish" have been equated.

(2) I find it incredible that someone might think that a publication's political orientation -- particularly leftist, but really, in any case -- would insulate it from a charge of bias, as you seem to imply.

Is the fact that Germany did not join "The Coalition Of The Willing" still hurting your patriotic pride? Why else shift the topic to anti-america?

I have no idea why the publication in question seems to have slanted the story. You're welcomed to suggest any motivations you'd like.

I don't see this story as being about Germans in general, and German attitudes or German politics -- or at least I'm hoping it isn't.

If this was covered by German papers it must have been covered by American ones as well...

Huh? No, I'm sorry, a girl getting hit in a New York nightclub doesn't make the papers here. There's no rule like that that I know of -- if a German paper covers it, then it must be written up here.

Which just highlights how incredibly weird that it would actually make a newspaper in Germany! Perhaps you're right, and this is about the international angle, since I can't imagine just being hit would make it newsworthy.

Thanks for pointing that out -- I almost missed it.

Now if would do me the favour of reading between the lines a bit, what is your impression on the tone of the initial article?

I see the article as being worried about general trends in Germany, and in one German publication, but generally unsure. For example in the crucial summary paragraph, it says: "it's difficult to tell" -- that's the phrase of a person who isn't sure what to think. Also examine this phrase: "I hope it's not reflective of a trend. I fear it may be." Again, not sure, but slightly worried.

I objected to the conjectures about Germany, that's all.

And what conjectures were those? You haven't identified them yet. If you wanted to reassure readers that this event is "not reflective of a trend" then all you needed to do way say: "Ah, it's just a hooligan. German's aren't like that."

And you said some words like that, but to a completely different effect: you seemed to argue that no German could have done such a thing, thus the event never happened, or it must have been a plot by this girl to beat up Germans, and humiliate them in the eyes of Americans.

Or Jews:

Did you want to show off to "your Jewish friends" how anti-German you are?

So it seems you apparently need to see this as being about Germans in general.

Again, I don't see it that way, but perhaps I am being naive.

Tom,

Umm, Tim? You're forgetting that the tourist had a side as well. Remember that she "chased him , and jumped him and hit him several times then broke his glasses."

I admit that's possible, but I find it unlikely. Somehow, I have trouble believing a man who says he was (a) with two male friends, (b) while in their company, fled from a woman, and (c) was physically overpowered by the woman.

I admit this is a judgement call, but based on the physics of the matter, and what I know of human nature and the interactions beween men and women in bars, I find this account highly improbable. Thus I dismiss it.

Tim, the only thing twisted are your assumptions.

You're welcomed to view them that way. I don't think readers will agree with your assessment.

You can have multiple reasons for wearing jewelry.

I agree completely. But your statement was that it "didn't ring true" that she was wearing it because she had Jewish friends. You were the one apparently excluding one possible reason.

Now, if that's not what you meant, you're more than welcomed to clarify. But I see nothing unusual or improbable about that being her primary motivation. The only one who is apparently denying that it's possible that was indeed her main reason for buying/wearning it -- is you.

Again, you're welcome to retract or clarify.

Would she have been embarrassed to have someone think she was jewish? Is that why she added the *I'm not jewish* part?

Forgive me for being a bit strange, but, as Troy pointed out, she would understand the obvious assumption would be that people who wear a star of David would be Jewish. Thus, she would be used to being asked that question.

You seem have an extraordinarily hard time parsing that idea.

What would have been the point of him asking in the first place?

If it's true that he was repeatedly flicking her nose with his hand, and later yelled "Jewish PIG!" at her, then perhaps antisemitism would have been the motive.

Now, it could have been that he was trying out lines from a play he was writing, but I'm going to go with "antisemitism", for $50. :-)

Why are these such hard ideas for you to comprehend?

Yes, she went outside. Did you read the part where she said she tried to go back into the bar? "I was crying and trying to get into the bar..." Was this a case of letting the truth out? Was she going back into the bar in order to continue attacking the guy? Why go back into the bar?

Please notice she was with a friend, "Christine", who hadn't yet left the bar with her. That would mean that her friend was still inside.

It may also have been that she wanted to call the police, and/or keep an eye on her assailant until he could be arrested.

If you're argument was that she was a big, physically powerful person who was beating the bearded man up, again, I find that hard to believe, given that she was easily prevented from re-entering by a single guy.

But, I know, I'm deeply biased in this matter.

Again, what infantile mind would even think to fathom that the alleged actions of one drunk would represent an ENTIRE NATION?

I don't think it does, and have never said anything of the sort. The actions of the drunk anti-semite do not necessarily say anything about Germans in general.

But a German left-wing newspaper seems to have made it about all "German men", and now Jonathan seems to want to make it be all about Germany and the US as well.

Again, I *do* think such an idea is infantile, and have pointed this out repeatedly. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to write that before you'll notice it.

Tim,

This is a classic urban legend story. She goes to the effort to post the guy's name, but she won't post the date of the newspaper article or the name of the bar? The name of the 'tourist' was created to add credibility to the story.

As already pointed out earlier, the supposedly horrible damage to her face (approximately a one-inch area of red skin and one-half of her upper lip swollen) in the first photo MAGICALLY grew into a black/purple blob in the second photo posted three days later. The NEW damage was in areas that were PERFECTLY FINE in the first photo.
Perhaps she decided that the first picture wasn't gory enough for even gullible people to believe. Photoshop or makeup anyone?

Shoot, just compare the photo in the follow-up to the first photo.

http://drdot.blog-city.com/update_on_the_attack.htm

This wasn't real.

*Also, She REFUSED to go to the emergency room to get an x-ray.

"The fake ponytail I had clipped onto my head saved my life, if that wasn't there when I hit the ground, my skull may have cracked open, so let's hear it for fake hair pieces! Yeah!"

Freudian slip? Constantly mentioning 'fake'?

She might have had her skull cracked open if not for a fake ponytail? And she didn't want to get an x-ray to make sure there wasn't any damage to her skull? File under FERTILIZER.*

This is a classic urban legend story. She goes to the effort to post the guy's name, but she won't post the date of the newspaper article or the name of the bar? The name of the 'tourist' was created to add credibility to the story.

Troy,

I'd just like to apologize one last time to you. I am not sorry for the language I used in my response, I don't place much stock in language taboos, but I AM sorry for inadvertantly disrespecting you or your website in anyway, which was never my intention.

Ummm... well, I wasn't all that offended, and I sure didn't take it personally. But (a) I want people to be offended at my ideas, not the way I phrase them -- I like to keep it clean for any who visit, and (b) I can't very well go banning hate-filled trolls for their obscene language while letting the readers I rather more enjoy pull the same, uh... stuff. :-)

@Tom
It was a pleasure reading your posts, if you feel like dropping me a line use the email I provided in this post.
I'd be honoured to meet you on another forum, preferably a political one

@Tim
Best of luck. thanks for being fair and allowing what you conceive of as controversial comments. I won't bother you or this forum any more. Should you come up with substantiating evidence on this issue feel free to mail me as well.

Best of luck. thanks for being fair and allowing what you conceive of as controversial comments.

Likewise. Thanks for keeping it basicly civil.

Should you come up with substantiating evidence on this issue feel free to mail me as well.

Ummm... wasn't aware you were asking for substantiation.

The story is basicly taken at face value, like everything else a blogger says on their blog about their own life. My policy is that I believe people's testimony about their own lives until there's good reason not to -- and if someone wants to call someone else a liar then they have the burden of proof.

But if you are a skeptic, who cares deeply about this (who knows why?) and were looking for confirmation, then you were more than welcomed to (a) write to the e-mail address of the reporter, posted above, and ask him if such an article was published, (b) follow up and write to Dr. Dot and ask her if her story can be confirmed.

Of course, these things were available to you even before you posted here, if that was a big issue for you.

Here's the article...

Wow! You suprised me, Jonathan. Credit where due! I attempted to look for it myself a long time ago, but wasn't able to locate it at the time. Thank you for finding it.

Nothing about anti-semitism was mentioned in court...

The article says it was designated before the court as an anti-semitic attack.

My apologies for posting again...

Look, you're more than welcomed to post here, Jonathan, and I sincerely thank you for bringing this to people's attention.

Now that I know his name, I was able to find a number of references to this incident.

Look, to me, this looks like two people who got into a fight in a bar. What caught my attention was not that Dot had been whacked by a guy she admitted to having slapped first (after some alleged physical provacation from him) -- people fight all the time -- but that it had apparently been played up in the German press.

I have no trouble at all believing Dot whacked/slapped the guy and possibly knocked off or broke his glasses, as some accounts mention (but hers does not). And it sounds like she may have "run" from the bar after doing it, rather than walking, as her own account implies.

On second thought, I might be wrong that she broke his glasses at all. I re-read her account, and it mentioned a fight broke out afterwards, and so I also need to consider that he was actually pounded by someone else, producing his own wounds...

One of the German guys was still lingering outside the bar and told me not to be a baby, that his friend didn't hit me etc. Everyone was screaming at him , telling him they had ALL seen what happened, and at the same time the American guys dragged the 3 German guys back to the scene, a few cop cars pulled up and then a HUGE fight broke out, it was chaos.It seemed, no one knew who the good guy or the bad guy was anymore.

Fists were flying and bodies slammed to the ground. I was asked which men were responsible, I pointed only to the bearded guy (now without glasses) but the police REALLY wanted to make sure it wasn't all three guys, I said "no, it was just that one guy!"

(Sounds like she could have easily nailed a few more people if she wanted to.) I wondered how she would have been able to hit him so hard, inside the bar, that she might have broken his glasses, without attracting attention inside. Given that he seems to have lied about the "self-defense" angle, I don't think it's a stretch to consider whether his split lip and broken glasses could have been incurred as a result of his behavior.

Whether you find such a thing possible at all or not, I find it telling that the German media accounts completely omitted this -- and other contradictory evidence -- in their presentation of the story. As if they didn't want the readers be able to make up there own minds.

Again, that's a clear indication of "bias".

Tim, I'll simply try to explain what I don't like about the story - consider this a bit of a timeout: I'll try not to include any bias:
The emphasis is on Jewry and symbolism, not on personal observations. That's fine by me, only using a detached style to do so is ... biased.

[You didn't like] The emphasis is on Jewry and symbolism, not on personal observations. That's fine by me, only using a detached style to do so is ... biased.

Which article are you referring to? Mine, here? Dot's, being quoted? Anja's?

Which one is "detached"? Mine? If I had claimed Dot was absolutely telling the truth, you would have called me biased, undoubtedly. But, since you argue it's "detached", then it's also biased?

That makes no sense. Detachment is the exact opposite of bias. You're apparently defining exact opposites to be logically identical.

As far as her "emphasis" on Jewry on symbolism, you must consider whether it's possible that she simply recounted the events which happened to her. If that's what happened, then the emphasis was put there by her attacker, not her.

That's like being angry that a Southern Black reporting on a lynching in the 1950s, and complaining he made it sound like it was all about race. Well, that might have been because it was all about race -- to his attackers.

I'm sure the black man would have preferred such a topic never came up. And, if what Dot is saying is true, I'm sure she wished it wasn't about those things also. She doesn't appear to be someone who's afraid of loving people of other religions and cultures, given that she wore the symbol of a completely different belief system and race.

Yet it's funny -- she was apparently attacked because she stood out and was different, and below you say, basicly, "Can't we all just get along?" Whatever her other faults, I'm sure she felt the same way, Jonathan, and didn't want to be attacked because of a necklace. So why, since you say such things, are you so quick to side with one who doesn't apparently feel that way?

It sounds like you're trying to blame her for being attacked, or for daring to tell people what transpired, as it appeared to her at the time.

Again, I wonder what it is that bothers you here. Are you worried about some Germans might be anti-semitic? So what? Why would that be your fault? Are you anti-semitic or something??? If not, then what why would you feel the need to defend someone who appeared to be?

You seem to think that Americans view present-day Germans as being "evil Nazis". Which Hollywood movies are talking about? In my experience, previously anyway, Americans don't think of modern-day Germans as being about "Nazis" (we think "beer" and "Volkswagen") any more than we'd think about Italians as being about Mussolini (no: Pasta! Ferrari!) or think of the Japanese as followers of Hirohito (we think "Sony!" and "Pokemon!"). Is that what your press tells you we think? It's completely untrue -- or has been. I always grew up thinking of Germans as wonderful, sensible, smart people and close friends of ours.

And even when you see "neo-Nazis" in Hollywood movies these days, they're always Americans, Jonathan. Hollywood doesn't bother beating up on Germans -- that would interere with attacking their favorite targets: American political conservatives and fundamentalist Christians.

But yes, I know -- the German press is very anti-american these days. So perhaps they're telling you we hate you in order to get you to hate us. Give it a rest. It's nothing like that here. You seem to think we all care deeply about whether Germans supported the Iraq thing. Most don't. They are angry about France, but think about Germany no worse than they'd think about Russia, Turkey or Spain. (Stop letting your media feed you that crap.)

But perhaps all those good things are changing. Perhaps antisemitism is rising in Germany, as it is in other parts of Europe. I don't know, Jonathan. Like I said, this story raises some significant questions, as does some of the research I've been seeing lately. And as does your own reactions.

You imagined she attempted to get hit in order to impress Jewish friends and humiliate Germans. You yourself seemed fixated on the Jewish aspects of the story, calling her "our little Jewish devotee" -- as though that were her most important characteristic. (I saw her just as a "club girl" who happened to pick a Jewish oranment -- many wear crucifxes and don't mean that either.)

You imagined she saw herself as "stained" -- by what??? What would an American girl be 'stained" about regarding Jews? Why would you imagine she was friends with Jews to "whitewash" her "background" -- is that how you see such things? Isn't it possible she just has a Jewish friend? Is that so difficult to believe?

Is it possible you're projecting your own motivations on her? Do you feel "stained" by what happened several generations ago?

You shouldn't. If you aren't the same, then you have nothing to apologize for -- it wasn't your fault at all. But if you share some of the same beliefs or outlooks, well, then that's a problem. But not because of what happened a long time ago, but because of what is happening now. I don't believe in blaming people for the distant past -- as long as they disown it and disagree with it. That's true for Germans, Americans, Russians, whoever.

And here's a shock for you Jonathan: I sometimes attend a Jewish seder with a family of Jews. Not because I'm "stained" or something. But because one of them is my friend, a nice girl from college who simply once invited me to join her family, as it is traditional to show hospitality to outsiders during that feast.

Am I also a "faker" or "devotee" because I do something Jewish, but am not? Must I be "stained" by something??? It's called being friends -- the very thing you advocate, but the very thing you apparently can't envision someone here doing with Jews just because we like some as friends, as people, as normal human beings.

(I also happen to have friends who are Muslim, atheists, heavy drug-users, New Age mystics, Catholics, Hindus, etc. They've just never invited me to their house for a traditional dinner.)

Now, if you had some kind of evidence that Stefan was innocent -- something to overcome the basic points I was making here, then I could understand your apparent need to take his side at each turn. But I'm not seeing that presented. Yet you keep treating him as though he were innocent, without even apparently addressing the question of evidence.

So it does sound like to me like you've got some internal psychological struggle, somehow involving Jewish things or German things, going on there. Again, if you'd like to talk about it, I'm more than willing to listen.

But you don't need to feel ashamed of what someone else did, or apologize for events which happened long before you were even born. Blaming a modern German for past Nazism is as stupid as blaming an American for slavery. It's over. Let's move on, be friends, and not repeat those mistakes.

I bet you like the ending presented by the newspaper, same as I do.

I love happy endings. I like people being friends, of course. But there are varying kinds of things which draw people together. Further, I don't see what that has to do with the larger story, other than to (apparently) generate sympathy for one party.

Side issue, how do you get these ... to show on this forum?

If you're trying to make a hyperlink, type it like this: [a href="http://google.com/"]...[/a] -- only use greater-than and less-than signs where the brackets are.

While intentional omission is indicative of falsehood, what you gleaned from your sources is simply a second statement.

I don't mind the second statement. As you and I both stated previously, it is what is omitted, and extra little details which are made up or "spun" which can indicate bias.

She got hit. The guy was charged. Get over it.

The paper that printed the story fyi is the "Berliner Zeitung" and the German who knocked me out is Stefan Waxmann. The fact you accuse me of making this up makes me irate.
I feel sorry for you.
Dr. Dot