Eigermonk

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that your personal testimony has no place in an encyclopedic article. You can express your opinions in a personal web page or a blog, but not here. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I would also advise you not to use Wikipedia talk pages as a platform for soapboxing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Eigermonk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Andries (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like yiou have something to say! I used to be a "premie," but I was deprogrammed, an long time ago. Wowest (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

here is some criticism of Prem Rawat that was nearly all removed, though it was nearly all sourced to reputable sources. Not even a short summary remained. [1]Andries (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andries, thank You this is very interesting. As a newcommer to Wiki, I sureley was not being well prepared and I made the mistake, not informing myself about the rules at Wiki and therefore I gave a lot of reason to dismiss my contribution. Anyhow, I found out at the user pages that Jossi is a a student of Maharaj Ji for 20 years and even engaged in a related organization as stated on his disclosure. Rumiton says about Maharaj Ji, "His work has been of great benefit to me personally". This of course does not disqualify a person of beeing an editor at Wiki - not at all. But to my understanding of objectivity, such editors should not give advice to others about NPOV on a subject personally related to themselves. Anyhow, I have no more time to let this go on. Wiki is what it is and as far as I can see, it is loosing more and more reputation among professional writers and editors. Especcially subjects on religion seem to be very problematic, since there are always a lot of followers of that religion, sect or cult, who have a strong personal interest in defending their believes against any kind of criticism.--Eigermonk (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Schmalz

Hello Eigermonk. This word appears in another place in the book as well, and it is very difficult to translate. In the other place the context is something like: Kat even managed to get two boxes of lobsters for us, though in fact we would have preferred more Schmalz. Comment? Rumiton (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "Schmalz" stands for a lot of things and I think, it might be quite difficult to translate. It carries a lot of emotions and as a translator You should think about, what kind of emotions Remarque tries to transmit behind his words. To a German, hearing this word causes a lot of different associations and pictures and I am shure, a good author like Remarque is usíng these pictures and associations, combines them and plays with them like a painter uses coulours and forms. First of all, Schmalz is just the fat, derived from pigs or goose (the difference is quite important, since goose-fat is much more delicous and more expensive). In the beginning of the 20th century Schmalz on a peace of bread (Schmalzstulle) was one of the main food, to give to children for school or for a labourer for its break at work. The word Schmalzstulle gives one the feeling of home, mother caring for it´s children, sharing it with some comrades outside playing or at work (or at war). Besides that, it was an important meal and source of energy or even the main-meal especially for the poor. During the 50th people became richer and slowly replaced Schmalz by butter, cheese etc. and the feeling associated with Schmalz is not as strong anymore. Another meaning of Schmalz is, in connection with your muscle-strength and still another one is in association with your courage or spirit. The less Schmalz you have of it, the weaker you are. I do not remember the passage of the book you mention, but the reference to lobster gives me the feeling, that here are certain people who could afford lobster, while other where lying in the dirt. Probably they could not prepare the lobster, because it needs fire and hot water. So they prefered Schmalz, which is on the other hand their familiar source of energy. So maybe Remarque tries to paint the picture of some poor soldiers, hungry, ending up with lobster, which they somehow manged to take away from some rich and corrupt general, longing for their Schmalz which gives them energy and lets them feel warm and think about home. But their general has betrayed them, leaving them in the dirt, dying, while they just care about their lobster. Thats what I can feel in these few words. Try to translate that into English language using English (or American or Australian) pictures.--Eigermonk (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. I will think about it some more, and perhaps find the original reference tonight. Rumiton (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is the original. Er findet alles -- wenn es kalt ist, kleine Oefen und Holz, Heu und Stroh, Tische, Stuehle, -- vor allem aber Fressen. Es ist Raetselhaft, man sollte glauben, er zaubere es aus der Luft. Seine Glanzleistung waren vier Dosen Hummer. Allerdings haetten wir lieber Schmalz dafuer gehabt. In Ihrer Meinung, was heisst hier "Schmalz?" Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)