Talk:Hindenburg - Revision history

MoshiachNow: /* Nazism */

2007-05-06T20:56:19Z

Nazism

DanH at 20:54, May 6, 2007

2007-05-06T20:54:23Z

MoshiachNow at 20:53, May 6, 2007

2007-05-06T20:53:28Z

MoshiachNow: Nazism

2007-05-06T20:45:44Z

Nazism

New page

Implying on the front page that the deaths of 35 people are not tragic is kind of tacky.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed! [[User:Tribal Totem|Tribal Totem]] 12:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps they were bad people... They seem to have mostly been foreigners, after all. [http://www.garemaritime.com/features/hindenburg/hindenburg_final_voyage_passenger_list.php] --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The notion that the airships like the Hindenburg had a future is not correct. Passanger jets would regularly cross the Atlantic within twenty years of the disaster. If anything, the US Navy already knew that airships were not relaible, having lost several in the 1930s, as shown here <ttp://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/airship/usa.htm>--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)(forgot time stamp)

:Please correct the article, then. And while you're at it, don't make those 35 lives sound so devalued. I can't stand that.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:15, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ames, your criticism is '''completely''' misplaced. Nobody devalues any lives on Conservapedia. The point is obvious to the open-minded and if you think politically correct censorship works here, forget it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I’m a little bothered by the insinuation that the people who did not jump remained calm. I suspect they did not get the chance to jump. Anyone who has seen the newsreel footage knows that this happened very quickly. Somehow, I think that if most people had several hundred pounds of flammable gas ignite over their heads, “calm” would not be the way to describe their reaction. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, characterizing it as a "media hysteria" even without reference to, or with passing, glancing reference to the tragedy is insensitive.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Nazism ==

You're article seems to suggest that the US boycott of Nazi Germany was a bad thing. I assume that you did not mean to imply this. Could someone maybe comment on this? When I do a google search on "boycott Hindenburg helium" I get WashTimes, Chron, and other papers, but the first site to come up is a neo nazi site called adolfthegreat.com. May I add a comment here about the ''reasons'' the US boycotted the evil, atheist Nazi regime?[[User:MoshiachNow|MoshiachNow]] 16:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

AmesG at 17:25, May 6, 2007

2007-05-06T17:25:04Z

New page

Implying on the front page that the deaths of 35 people are not tragic is kind of tacky.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed! [[User:Tribal Totem|Tribal Totem]] 12:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps they were bad people... They seem to have mostly been foreigners, after all. [http://www.garemaritime.com/features/hindenburg/hindenburg_final_voyage_passenger_list.php] --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The notion that the airships like the Hindenburg had a future is not correct. Passanger jets would regularly cross the Atlantic within twenty years of the disaster. If anything, the US Navy already knew that airships were not relaible, having lost several in the 1930s, as shown here <ttp://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/airship/usa.htm>--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)(forgot time stamp)

:Please correct the article, then. And while you're at it, don't make those 35 lives sound so devalued. I can't stand that.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:15, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ames, your criticism is '''completely''' misplaced. Nobody devalues any lives on Conservapedia. The point is obvious to the open-minded and if you think politically correct censorship works here, forget it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I’m a little bothered by the insinuation that the people who did not jump remained calm. I suspect they did not get the chance to jump. Anyone who has seen the newsreel footage knows that this happened very quickly. Somehow, I think that if most people had several hundred pounds of flammable gas ignite over their heads, “clam” would not be the way to describe their reaction. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, characterizing it as a "media hysteria" even without reference to, or with passing, glancing reference to the tragedy is insensitive.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly at 17:21, May 6, 2007

2007-05-06T17:21:30Z

New page

AmesG at 17:15, May 6, 2007

2007-05-06T17:15:10Z

New page

Jeremiah4-22 at 16:50, May 6, 2007

2007-05-06T16:50:59Z

Tribal Totem at 16:43, May 6, 2007

2007-05-06T16:43:29Z

AmesG: New page: Implying on the front page that the deaths of 35 people are not tragic is kind of tacky.-~~~~

2007-05-06T16:42:36Z

New page: Implying on the front page that the deaths of 35 people are not tragic is kind of tacky.-~~~~

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, May 6, 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:

	Everybody knows the Nazis were evil. It looks strange and non-encyclopedic to go out of our way to state it. [[User:DanH\|DanH]] 16:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)		Everybody knows the Nazis were evil. It looks strange and non-encyclopedic to go out of our way to state it. [[User:DanH\|DanH]] 16:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Everyone knows who the Almighty is but we talk about Him anyway. The article as it was written clearly implied that the US was somehow responsible, because of an implied bad boycott.[[User:MoshiachNow\|MoshiachNow]] 16:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:54, May 6, 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:

	Why would you undo the factual edit? Do you not think it is relevant to give the real history, as opposed to making it seem that the US ''wanted'' to cause the deaths on the Hindenburg? Are you embarrassed that the US fought the Nazis?[[User:MoshiachNow\|MoshiachNow]] 16:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)		Why would you undo the factual edit? Do you not think it is relevant to give the real history, as opposed to making it seem that the US ''wanted'' to cause the deaths on the Hindenburg? Are you embarrassed that the US fought the Nazis?[[User:MoshiachNow\|MoshiachNow]] 16:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	Everybody knows the Nazis were evil. It looks strange and non-encyclopedic to go out of our way to state it. [[User:DanH\|DanH]] 16:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:53, May 6, 2007
Line 17:		Line 17:

	You're article seems to suggest that the US boycott of Nazi Germany was a bad thing. I assume that you did not mean to imply this. Could someone maybe comment on this? When I do a google search on "boycott Hindenburg helium" I get WashTimes, Chron, and other papers, but the first site to come up is a neo nazi site called adolfthegreat.com. May I add a comment here about the ''reasons'' the US boycotted the evil, atheist Nazi regime?[[User:MoshiachNow\|MoshiachNow]] 16:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)		You're article seems to suggest that the US boycott of Nazi Germany was a bad thing. I assume that you did not mean to imply this. Could someone maybe comment on this? When I do a google search on "boycott Hindenburg helium" I get WashTimes, Chron, and other papers, but the first site to come up is a neo nazi site called adolfthegreat.com. May I add a comment here about the ''reasons'' the US boycotted the evil, atheist Nazi regime?[[User:MoshiachNow\|MoshiachNow]] 16:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Why would you undo the factual edit? Do you not think it is relevant to give the real history, as opposed to making it seem that the US ''wanted'' to cause the deaths on the Hindenburg? Are you embarrassed that the US fought the Nazis?[[User:MoshiachNow\|MoshiachNow]] 16:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, May 6, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Implying on the front page that the deaths of 35 people are not tragic is kind of tacky.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)		Implying on the front page that the deaths of 35 people are not tragic is kind of tacky.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
	:Agreed! [[User:Tribal Totem\|Tribal Totem]] 12:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)		:Agreed! [[User:Tribal Totem\|Tribal Totem]] 12:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	::Perhaps they were bad people... They seem to have mostly been foreigners, after all. [http://www.garemaritime.com/features/hindenburg/hindenburg_final_voyage_passenger_list.php] --[[User:Jeremiah4-22\|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, May 6, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Implying on the front page that the deaths of 35 people are not tragic is kind of tacky.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)		Implying on the front page that the deaths of 35 people are not tragic is kind of tacky.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
		+	:Agreed! [[User:Tribal Totem\|Tribal Totem]] 12:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)