 |
 |
--part1_119.4109ba6.28c2d51a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/1/01 6:39:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: > Does anyone else who cares to consider the matter have an opinion as to what > Julius may have been trying to say here? > > Tom K OK, I'll try on your exact question. Julius, in my opinion, flies off the handle too easily, and it was interesting to me to realize, in the David Irving case, that Julius was the solicitor and Rampton was the barrister. I read most of the transcript, and what was so admirable about Rampton was his ability to think clearly and stay calm under pressure. Julius is more into emotionalism, which can sometimes be detrimental. In the case of his book, I guess he means well. But he tends to come out slugging, not always with forethought, whenever he believes a Jew needs defending or an antsemitic slur needs refuting. Sometimes he seems to know less than he ought to about the person he's volunteeering to defend, and sometimes no defense is needed because nobody was being attacked. For specific examples, Sir Alfred Mond was an industrialist and newspaper publisher. Julius, for some inexplicable reason, calls him a financier. In the exchange you ask about, I know Eliot read and supported Rosenberg. My gut feeling is that Julius had not read Rosenberg, and this is why Julius fails to understand what Eliot is saying, misconstrues it as derogatgory--it's actually a great compliment to Rosenberg-- and is saying things himself that don't make much sense. pat --part1_119.4109ba6.28c2d51a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>In a message dated 9/1/01 6:39:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] <BR>writes: <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Does anyone else who cares to consider the matter have an opinion as to what <BR>Julius may have been trying to say here? <BR> <BR>Tom K</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <BR>OK, I'll try on your exact question. Julius, in my opinion, flies off the <BR>handle too easily, and it was interesting to me to realize, in the David <BR>Irving case, that Julius was the solicitor and Rampton was the barrister. I <BR>read most of the transcript, and what was so admirable about Rampton was his <BR>ability to think clearly and stay calm under pressure. Julius is more into <BR>emotionalism, which can sometimes be detrimental. <BR> <BR>In the case of his book, I guess he means well. But he tends to come out <BR>slugging, not always with forethought, whenever he believes a Jew needs <BR>defending or an antsemitic slur needs refuting. Sometimes he seems to know <BR>less than he ought to about the person he's volunteeering to defend, and <BR>sometimes no defense is needed because nobody was being attacked. For <BR>specific examples, Sir Alfred Mond was an industrialist and newspaper <BR>publisher. Julius, for some inexplicable reason, calls him a financier. <BR> <BR>In the exchange you ask about, I know Eliot read and supported Rosenberg. My <BR>gut feeling is that Julius had not read Rosenberg, and this is why Julius <BR>fails to understand what Eliot is saying, misconstrues it as <BR>derogatgory--it's actually a great compliment to Rosenberg-- and is saying <BR>things himself that don't make much sense. <BR> <BR>pat</FONT></HTML> --part1_119.4109ba6.28c2d51a_boundary--