> >Lawson, it is the element of FALSEHOOD which distinquishes "obvious bias"
> >and "propaganda-as-it-is-commonly-understood-" from Tendenzschrift. Even
> >if your dictionary does not explicitely mention "intent to mislead" ore
> >something like that as an (important!) part of propaganda, this is exactly
> >how many people will see it, IMHO, who read the translation without
> knowing about the original german articles.

><snip>
>> > While it is true that people will try to imply that someone is lying by
>> > calling what they are saying "propaganda," the actual word doesn't
>> > contain that implication.

>> What "actual word", that of the dictionary or that of common usage? People
>> reading "propaganda" are not likely to consult a dictionary to get all
>> its meanings. And my experience has been that whenever the word propaganda
>> was used in english (among students and scientists), it *did* mean lying
>> propaganda.

>Can't account for your personal experience; it certainly does not
>jibe with mine.  In my experience, "propaganda" is *usually* used
>to mean "a perspective I don't agree with."  It's actually used a
>lot more loosely than the dictionary definition warrants, i.e.,
>to apply to a much broader range of types of expression of
>opinion; it is *certainly* not limited to "lying" in common
>usage.

>To a certain extent, you make my earlier point for me, which is
>that whether "propaganda" refers to lies or not is a matter of
>the *context*.  Obviously, there was something about the
>*context* of the use of the term by students and scientists that
>led you to understand they meant lying--otherwise how would you
>have known?

>In the context of the German court decision, there is *nothing*
>that would suggest lying was involved.  Hence the use of the term

>I'm afraid you've had limited exposure to English usage.  In any
>case, it appears you are suggesting court statements (and
>translations thereof) must be pitched to the lowest common
>denominator to make sure *nobody* misunderstands even through
>their own ignorance.

>I rather doubt many jurists would agree with you.

>And I would remind you once again that the translation *Steve*
>used had "obvious bias," not "propaganda."  The only reason that
>term came up at all was because Bernd made a big hullabaloo over
>the inclusion of the adjective "obvious."  My point was that the
>court's statement about the study having been performed by
>"ideological-religious opponents of the TM movement" *not only*
>justified the translation "obvious bias" but even justified the
>slightly stronger term "propaganda."  The *difference* between
>the two terms is that "propaganda" is intended to persuade
>others, whereas "obvious bias" simply refers to a person's
>individual point of view.  And the Bensheim study was very
>clearly intended to persuade others of the "dangers" of TM.

>Recall, if you will, that this discussion started with regard to
>the validity of the *study*, which none of you arguing about the
>translation has bothered even to glance at, despite repeated
>urging.  That strikes me as rather hypocritical, to say the
>least.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> <snip>
> > > Perhaps *by itself* Tendenz would not imply obvious bias, but
> > > look at the context again.  This was purported to be a
> > > *scientific* study on the effects of TM, but it was performed by
> > > religious-ideological opponents of TM.  It seems to me in that
> > > context (and the context of the rest of what the lower court said
> > > about the study), "study with a purpose" MEANS "propaganda
> > > piece."

> > I think "context" is the key: The context *you* infer, suggests to *you* that
> > *propaganda* while not a close translation, is an appropriate one.
> > The issue was not how you interpret it, it was how it was translated.
> > The translation should not infer some context for the user, it should
> > translate as close as possible and leave all inferences to the reader.

> > For instance: If there was a sentence like:

> > The close translation reads:

> > You might translate:

> > While this would be an accurate paraphrase in the context, it
> > still is a wrong translation. People will get the correct
> > impression by reading the paraphrase. In the case of the
> > TM-article, it is *your* opinion, that from the context you can
> > infer that "propaganda, bias,etc" are accurate translations, but
> > other readers should be given a fair chance to make up their own
> > mind, without someone giving a helping hand to nudge them in a
> > certain direction.

> Very poor analogy.  In the court case, the *entire* context was
> negative toward the study; there were no statements parallel to
> the one you cite concerning Hitler, i.e., statements from the
> perspective of the study's authors.

> > I hope by invoking Godwins law I can hereby end this thread.

> Godwin's law, being, as I understand it, an accusation that the
> person one is having a discussion with is a Nazi?

> > ad 1 - 3) Im not so sure, Scott supports all your translations
> > over Bernds. But its probably best to ask him dirctly.

> I never said he supported *all* my translations over Bernd's.  I
> said he supported, in what he posted here, all but two, which I
> identified:
> > (1) His mild objection to "isolated" versus "individual," which
> is a really minor quibble--I'd be happy with either; and (2) his
> objection to "obvious bias/propaganda," which I maintain is
> entirely justifiable in context.

><snip>
>> From my experience and from what I gleaned about the
>> translation of various  "Einzel-whatever" in my dictionary I
>> would say : Both translations are correct.  It is a mattter of
>> opinion, with my and my dictionarys preference given to
>> "individual cases". However, Judy said:  "Einzelfaelle" is
>> translated in my dictionary as "isolated cases," just as in the
>>translation Steve Guich used.

>> This is only part of the truth

>Uh, no, Anton, it is the whole of the truth of what *my*
>dictionary says about "Einzelfaelle."

>The dictionary I have does indeed define "Einzel..." as
>"individual," and many combined terms using "Einzel..." as
>individual whatevers.  HOWEVER, in the case of "Einzelfaelle," it
>gives the definition "isolated cases."

>The difference between my dictionary and yours may or may not be
>a question of comprehensiveness.  It might be a case of
>up-to-dateness, or whether the dictionary is more prescriptive
>vs. more descriptive (of usage), or simply a matter of editorial
>judgment.  Dictionary definitions are not absolute.

><snip>
>> JS> : > No.  In the context of opposing ideologies, as here, "Tendenz" is  
>> > : > a lot stronger than either "tendency" or "bias."  In English, it  
>> > : > would be translated "tendentious."

>> Side remark to JS.:No, you cannot alwas combine words and expect the  
>> meaning to be the combination of the individual meanings.

>ROTFL!  Above *you* attempt to say that because "Einzel..." is
>defined as "individual" in your dictionary, therefore
>"Einzelfaelle" must mean "individual cases."

>In what respect do you suggest it is NOT the same?

>No, because not all stairways have handrails, but all stairways
>have stairs; and because the first term refers to the most
>significant feature of each.  Bad example.

>> "Tendenzschrift" is a lot *weaker* than "tendency or bias,
>> combined with writing".

>"Tendency" is not the English translation of "Tendenz" in this
>case; it would be "tendentious," meaning espousing a particular
>point of view.

>There is the matter of *context* to be considered.  You cannot
>insist on particular translations of some words independently of
>the context.

>The context is that of a study that *purports to be scientific*.  
>Scientific studies are *supposed* to be objective.  A study that
>calls itself scientific yet espouses a particular point of view,
>rather than being objective, is, by definition, biased.

>The further context is (a) that this purportedly scientific
>study, which in fact espouses a particular point of view, was
>performed by *ideological-religious opponents* of TM; (b) that it
>used a highly selective (nonrandom) sample population that was
>deliberately slanted toward those who were hostile to TM--in
>other words, toward those subjects who could be expected to agree
>with the study's authors' point of view; and (c) that the study's
>authors claimed the findings in this deliberately slanted sample
>constituted a "representative cross-section" of TMers in general.
>And all these points were noted by the German (lower) court.

>That is why, in this context--and in the further context of legal
>language, which tends to understate rather than to overstate--the
>appropriate translation of "Tendenzschriften" is "obviously
>biased."

>The court was giving the study's authors a measure of the benefit
>of the doubt as to whether they *knew* their conclusions were
>unwarranted--in other words, the court was allowing the
>possibility they were simply very poor scientists.

>> Maybe, technically  truth or falsehood" do not at all enter the
>> picture but in everyday use  "propaganda" is often associated
>> with "deceiving, lying". Therefore, translating  Tendenzschrift
>> as propaganda or "obviously biased" introduces a quality in the  
>> translation which was not there in the german original.

>As noted, "often associated" does not equate to "always
>associated."  In English, propaganda is not necessarily
>intentionally deceptive, nor did anything else in Steve's or my
>translations

> Er....

> Do you *really* think that this bit of fluff was NOT a lying piece of
> trash?

> If so, I suggest that you go back and ask the same group of students if
> they think that "a document with a message, written by
> religious-ideological opponents" of an organization is NOT
> anti <organization> propoganda?

>: That is what concerned me regarding the translation, even if *some* people
>: use propaganda in the "non-lying propaganda" sense. Because, if propaganda
>: sometimes can mean "disinformation, misdirection", then the translator was
>: engaged in the silly lawyers word game you were so angry about earlier:
>:  "Tendenzschrift" without the meaning "disinformation" has been translated as
>: "propaganda", which *may* have this meaning, and whats more, as "Anti-TM-propaganda"
>: which strongly suggests such a meaning, especially in the context of Judys post :

>Actually, given that the study claims to give a "cross-sectional
>representation" of TMers, when anyone with even a layman's background in
>Science knows that this wouldn't be possible, given the design of the
>"study," I am certainly comfortable with the "lying propaganda" label,
>and I think most educated people world-wide would be, also.

>"Tendenzschrift" was used by the german court. "Tendenzschrift" does not

> My question is: what kind of rationale do you have for taking this study
>seriously?

>Because it agrees with your preconceptions about TM?

>: JS> A "Tendenzschrift" is a propaganda piece.  Propaganda pieces are
>: > > accurately characterized as "obviously biased."  Propaganda
>: > > *implies* obvious bias.  That's the defining characteristic of
>: > > propaganda.
>: JS "Obviously biased" is an entirely
>: > : > appropriate translation, but what the court said in German is
>: > : > actually even more pointed.  

>: So the meaning of the translation is not the same as that of the german original.  
>: This is exactly like when you start with "reliable = steadfast","steadfast=solid",
>: "solid=...",... and at last:."wilful=unreliabe".
>: As mentioned before, if the court had wanted to call it propaganda, they
>: would have called it propaganda, not "Tendenzschrift".

>The *English* words "document with a message, written by
>religious-ideological opponents of the TM organization" is an *exact* fit
>for one of the standard definitions of the *English* word "propaganda."

>OK. Let's take this from the top:

>"lassen repraesentative Aussagen nicht zu" = "permit no representative
>statements"

>WHAT "permit no representative statements?"

>What is the translation that you would give to the words *surrounding*
>"lassen repraesentative Aussagen nicht zu"?

> <snip>
> > Actually, given that the study claims to give a "cross-sectional
> > representation" of TMers

> The phrase was "representative cross-section."  Pretty much the
> same thing, but you don't want to be accused of misquoting...

> (And this phrase was the one used in the translation provided on
> Trancenet, lest Bernd decide to accuse us of "hoaxing" it.)

> <snip>
> > My question is: what kind of rationale do you have for taking this study
> > seriously?

> Or more to the point, what kind of rationale does he have for
> taking the study seriously when he's never read it?

> <snip>
> > Are you aware of how silly you are? On the one hand, you say that
> > a paraphrase of Hitler "would be correct," and on the other, you claim that
> > Judy's paraphrase is merely her "opinion" that gives "a helping hand to
> > nudge them in a certain direction."

> The term "genocide," in my hypothetical example, is not used in
> the original language, but since "genocide" in English *means*
> killing everyone of a certain population group, the translation
> is entirely appropriate.

> Just as the German words literally translated "document with a
> message conducted by ideological-religious opponents of TM"
> *mean* "anti-TM propaganda" in English.

> Du machst Dir wirklich viel Muehe, Leuten zu widersprechen, die es nur  
> darauf abgesehen haben, hier ihre unsaegliche Propagandamuehle zu drehen.  
> Wart's nur ab, bald wird auch Dir die Lust vergehen, dich mit Poebel und  
> Gesindel abzugeben, die Du im wirklichen Leben vermutlich nicht mal mit  
> dem Arsch anschauen wuerdest ... :-)

> The half sentence left out above as "(..)" reads: "nachdem der Senat eine  
> Beweisaufnahme zu der Frage durchgefuehrt hat, ob TM insoweit ueberhaupt  
> eine gesteigerte Gefahrensituation darstellt." You should try to translate  
> that half sentence. Pleas keep in mind that "gesteigerte  
> gefahrensituation" is not just "enhanced danger situation" but German  
> "legal-speech" for a certaisn class of situations.

> The OVG (=BerGer) was wrong with its opinion that it is none. Therefore  
> the BVerwG nullified its decision regarding the "gesteigerte  
> Gefahrensituation" and stated

> "Dass die vom BerGer. festgestellten Gefahren nur einen Teil der  
> Bevoelkerung, naemlich Menschen mit einer bestimmten psychischen  
> Disposition betreffen, hindert die Bekl. nicht, die Oeffentlichkeit vor  
> diesen Gefahren zu warnen.(...)"

> "Destruction of personality" is the term that was used throughout the  
> case. The BVewGE states:

> " Der vom BerGer festgestellte sachverhalt rechtfertigt die umstrittene  
> Aeusserung der Bekl., TM koenne zu psychischen Schaeden oder zu einer  
> Persoenlichkeitszerstoerung fuehren. Das gilt auch mit Blick auf den  
> Begriff der "Persoenlichkeitszerstoerung", denn Psychosen koennen nach  
> ihrem Ausbruch bis zu irreversiblen totalem Persoenlichkeitszerfall  
> fuehren (vgl. Meyers Enzyklopaedisches Lexikon, 9. Aufl., Stichwort  
> "Psychose". Das es regelmaessig zu psychischen Schaeden kommt, wird von  
> den Bekl. nicht behauptet; die Rede ist nur von der Moeglichkeit solcher  
> Schaeden in Einzelfaellen."

> A scientific sampling of ONE Operational Amplifier would permit scientific  
> statements about its Gain and Phase and would permit to state general  
> statements about Transfer-Functions and Stability Criteria.

> Please note that the court gives sources for the decision: the witnesses,  
> the experts and the evidence (proof) of the BerGer (the OVG-decision). All  
> of them have *no* *doubt* that TM is responsible for *factual* *psychic*  
> *damage*.

> > > For instance: If there was a sentence like:
> (1)> > Hitler hat angeordnet, die glorreiche Endloesung zu beginnen.

> > > The close translation reads:
> (2)> > Hitler ordered to start the glorious final solution.

> > > You might translate:
> (3)> > Hitler ordered the atrocious mass {*filter*}ings to begin.

> > > While this would be an accurate paraphrase in the context, it
> > > still is a wrong translation. People will get the correct
> > > impression by reading the paraphrase. In the case of the
> > > TM-article, it is *your* opinion, that from the context you can
> > > infer that "propaganda, bias,etc" are accurate translations, but
> > > other readers should be given a fair chance to make up their own
> > > mind, without someone giving a helping hand to nudge them in a
> > > certain direction.

> > Very poor analogy.  In the court case, the *entire* context was
> > negative toward the study; there were no statements parallel to
> > the one you cite concerning Hitler, i.e., statements from the
> > perspective of the study's authors.

> (1) = Court document we are talking about
> (2) = correct Translation of (1)
> (3) = paraphrase of (1), correct in *my opinion*. People who would wish to
> form their own opinion would want access to translation (2). People who want
> to force their own preformed opinion on them would wish to give them access
> to (3) only. And might I remind you that in this example (3) is (nearly)
> universally seen to be correct, but *this is not so* with your interpretive
> translation of the german court document.

> AH, THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING. The "*commentary* on the study by the lower
> court" is the source of the translation for it (obviously). So the german
> court text we are talking about is equivalent to line (1). That the text
> is itself a commentary on some other german text is completely irrelevant.  

> > Godwin's law, being, as I understand it, an accusation that the
> > person one is having a discussion with is a Nazi?

> No, it is supposed to end any thread.

> > I never said he supported *all* my translations over Bernd's.  I
> > said he supported, in what he posted here, all but two, which I
> > identified:
> > > (1) His mild objection to "isolated" versus "individual," which
> > is a really minor quibble--I'd be happy with either; and (2) his
> > objection to "obvious bias/propaganda," which I maintain is
> > entirely justifiable in context.

> The parts of Scotts post I was talking about:

> I have presently no access to his post. I do not remember him explicitely
> stating support for that. Could you reproduce his post.

><snip>
>> >     These studies dealt only with
>> >    isolated cases, and only with persons who are hostile to the
>> >    movement were interviewed.

>> "Sie behandeln nur Einzelfaelle; es kommen nur negativ Eingestellte
>> zu Wort." Please note that S.G. translates "Einzelfaelle" to "isolated
>> cases" whereas the correct term is "individual cases".

>"Einzelfaelle" is translated in my dictionary as "isolated
>cases," just as in the translation Steve Guich used.

>> "Diese Arbeiten sind von