We are STILL WAITING for the pseudonymous author of the remarks I criticise below to give a reference for his fabricated account of Voltaire's sentiments.
When John Smith, on this ng, fabriacted a quotation from Edmund Burke he whined and obfuscated and eventually had to withdraw it, demonstrating his dishonesty and political illiteracy. Exactly the same procedure will now follow in your case, and it would spare the time and tolerance of this ng if you were to apologise now for your dishonest claims.
-- OLIVER KAMM
"Oliver Kamm" <oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> Here we have it! On your own admission, Chomsky knew Faurisson to be a Nazi > and yet described him as 'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal'. Thank > you for being so candid as - eventually - to admit this aspect of the public > record rather than obfuscate it.
> That admission is humiliating enough for you, but it pales into > insignificance compared with your reference to Voltaire. Rather like Mr > Smith and his fabricated 'quotation' from Edmund Burke - which he eventually > was forced to withdraw - it's patently obvious from the fabricated > 'quotation' from Voltaire you claim to allude to that your grasp of > intellectual history is exceedingly slight. If you wish to dispute that sad > but irrefutable judgement, then I suggest you go right ahead and provide a > source for this 'quotation'.
> The rest of us will fall about laughing while you attempt it.
> -- > OLIVER KAMM > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1011352537.18588.0.nnrp-07.3e310275@news.demon.co.uk... > > Chomsky was aware of Faurisson's ludicrous claims and has consistently > > denounced them as such (as demonstrated by the quotes below). He says he > has > > never read Faurisson's work, nor would he care to - either way it is > > irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is about freedom of speech. For > > someone fond of quoting Voltaire, your inability to distinguish between > > defending someone's views and defending his right to express them is the > > height of hypocrisy. The principle has been understood outside of fascist > > circles since at least the 17th century.
> > "Oliver Kamm" <oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:QVI18.3341$nA4.772158@monolith.news.easynet.net... > > > Quite incomprehensible to me, I'm afraid, and indeed to the rest of the > > ng. > > > Are you suggesting that Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's > > Nazism > > > when he cheered for that bigot, or are you trying to evade the question? > I > > > think we should be told.
> > > -- > > > OLIVER KAMM > > > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:1011112930.10102.0.nnrp-02.3e310275@news.demon.co.uk... > > > > An excerpt from an old thread should be humiliating enough for Oggie, > > > > although based on past performance it won't shut him up - au > contraire.
> > > > What a glutton for punishment.
> > > > [snip]
> > > > Knowing nothing about Guillaume and, (to coin a phrase) caring less, I > > am > > > > not in a position to comment as to whether he is a neo-Nazi or not. > > > However, > > > > if this one piece is all we have to show that Chomsky is a Nazi, then > > Cohn > > > > really is a lunatic. Guillaume states that "[Chomsky] says that his > > > opinions > > > > are 'diametrically opposed to those of Faurisson,' [but] he always > puts > > it > > > > in terms that absolutely cannot possibly hurt Faurisson". Could we > > please > > > > have some examples from Chomsky's own writings? Why should we trust > > > > Guillaume who, according to > > > > Cohn, *is* a neo-Nazi? Even if this were true, exactly how does it > show > > > that > > > > Chomsky is a Nazi sympathiser or an anti-Semite?
> > > > In contrast, if one actually takes the time to read Chomsky's own > words, > > > the > > > > picture is entirely different. Here's a representative sample.
> > > > 1) > > > > "Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and > > > have > > > > frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the > > Middle > > > > East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst > of > > > > collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that > > freedom > > > of > > > > expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to > views > > > of > > > > which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that > > are > > > > almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most > > > > vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no > > defense > > > > or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a > > violation > > > of > > > > civil rights by some official enemy." -- "His Right to Say It", Noam > > > > Chomsky, The Nation, February 28, 1981
> > > > Here, Chomsky is not only stating that his views are "diametrically > > > opposed" > > > > to those of Faurisson, but also implying that Faurisson's freedom of > > > speech > > > > must be defended precisely because his views are despicable.
> > > > 2) > > > > "Going back years, I am absolutely certain I've taken far more extreme > > > > positions on people who deny the Holocaust than you have. For example, > > you > > > > back to my earliest articles and you find that I say that even to > enter > > > into > > > > the arena of debate on the question of whether the Nazis carried out > > such > > > > atrocities is already to lose one's humanity. So I don't even think > you > > > > ought to discuss the issue, if you want to know my opinion. But if > > anybody > > > > wants to refute Faurisson there's certainly no difficulty in doing > > so." -- > > > > Noam Chomsky lecture, Battersea Arts Centre, London.
> > > > Get that, Cohn? "But if anybody wants to refute Faurisson there's > > > certainly > > > > no difficulty in doing so."
> > > > 3) > > > > "How much of the American press believes that Faurisson has anything > to > > > say? > > > > How much of the French press? Is it higher than zero? Have you ever > seen > > > > anything in any newspaper or any journal saying this man [Faurisson] > is > > > > anything other than a lunatic?" -- Noam Chomsky making Yossi Olmert > look > > > > stoopid in 1985.
> > > > [snip]
> > > > "Oliver Kamm" <oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:rmU08.2756$Oh1.819977@monolith.news.easynet.net... > > > > > I'm not surprised Mr Smith finds anti-Semitism all a bit of a giggle > > > > > considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the > Ku > > > > Klux > > > > > Klan. He does need to tell us directly, however: is he suggesting > that > > > > > Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's opinions on the Nazi > > > > > persecution of the Jews when he, Chomsky, described Faurisson as 'a > > sort > > > > of > > > > > relatively apolitical liberal'?
> > > > > Reflect carefully before you answer, Mr Smith: you have come unstuck > > > badly > > > > > before now through not being in command of your facts.
> > > > > -- > > > > > OLIVER KAMM > > > > > "john smith" <lagerboks-removeth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:3C440FA1.650AC905@yahoo.com... > > > > > > Glenn Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > > Oh god, not this rubbish again???!!!
> > > > > > > Chomsky was defending Faurrisan's (sp?) right to speak his mind. > > He > > > > was > > > > > not > > > > > > > defending the *thesis*.
> > > > > > > Jesus. It's such a *simple* point!
> > > > > > > Why can't people understand it???
> > > > > > > Glenn C.
> > > > > > yupp.
> > > > > > Now all we need is oggies/ollies "expert" dissertations for > another > > 2 > > > > > > months....
This is really amusing. Kamm is now either pretending to be clairvoyant or he's gone crazy and is seeing things (which amounts to the same thing). As I made no reference to any 'quotation', it follows as a matter of logic that I cannot be ascribing it to Voltaire or anyone else.
On the other hand, I *am* making the irrefutable claim that for someone fond of quoting Voltaire, Kamm's inability to distinguish between supporting someone's views and supporting his right to express them, reeks of hypocrisy. For anyone with an even cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work, this will be obvious. The fact that I have to point this out also sheds light on the unashamedly moronic level of Kamm's arguments.
I presume that the 'quotation' to which Kamm alludes (and which I did not allude to), is Evelyn Beatrice Hall's (aka Tallentyre's) loose paraphrase of Voltaire in her book "The Friends of Voltaire." Kamm, you know absolutely nothing about me or the depth of my knowledge of intellectual history but, I can assure you, you are treading on thin ice.
Finally, we are STILL WAITING for Kamm to reply to a previous post of mine, so I repeat it here. I look forward to laughing at his 'answers'.
---- I don't wish to be a party-pooper but, try as you might, the phrase "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal" will never constitute the kind of ringing endorsement of Faurisson that you would want us to believe it is. It is, at worst, a relatively neutral judgement which, in light of Chomsky's explicit reference to Faurisson as "a lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own, amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.
Further, given Kamm's apologias for fascists and war criminals such as Pinochet and Henry Kissinger in this very ng, it is rich in the extreme. ----
In article <Jz228.162$9t.154...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk says...
> Here we have it! On your own admission, Chomsky knew Faurisson to be a Nazi > and yet described him as 'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal'. Thank > you for being so candid as - eventually - to admit this aspect of the public > record rather than obfuscate it.
> That admission is humiliating enough for you, but it pales into > insignificance compared with your reference to Voltaire. Rather like Mr > Smith and his fabricated 'quotation' from Edmund Burke - which he eventually > was forced to withdraw - it's patently obvious from the fabricated > 'quotation' from Voltaire you claim to allude to that your grasp of > intellectual history is exceedingly slight. If you wish to dispute that sad > but irrefutable judgement, then I suggest you go right ahead and provide a > source for this 'quotation'.
> The rest of us will fall about laughing while you attempt it.
> -- > OLIVER KAMM > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1011352537.18588.0.nnrp-07.3e310275@news.demon.co.uk... > > Chomsky was aware of Faurisson's ludicrous claims and has consistently > > denounced them as such (as demonstrated by the quotes below). He says he > has > > never read Faurisson's work, nor would he care to - either way it is > > irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is about freedom of speech. For > > someone fond of quoting Voltaire, your inability to distinguish between > > defending someone's views and defending his right to express them is the > > height of hypocrisy. The principle has been understood outside of fascist > > circles since at least the 17th century.
> > "Oliver Kamm" <oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:QVI18.3341$nA4.772158@monolith.news.easynet.net... > > > Quite incomprehensible to me, I'm afraid, and indeed to the rest of the > > ng. > > > Are you suggesting that Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's > > Nazism > > > when he cheered for that bigot, or are you trying to evade the question? > I > > > think we should be told.
> > > -- > > > OLIVER KAMM > > > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:1011112930.10102.0.nnrp-02.3e310275@news.demon.co.uk... > > > > An excerpt from an old thread should be humiliating enough for Oggie, > > > > although based on past performance it won't shut him up - au > contraire.
This is a hilariously ignorant post. Fortunately for its author, my sense of scholarly standards prevents me from pointing out that he is a prize fathead with a minuscule knowledge of French intellectual history, but I cannot reputably desist from noting that he clearly finds much more to oppose in democratic politicians than he does in Nazis. Clearly he lacks even a cursory knowledge of Voltaire, who said nothing remotely comparable to what the Fabricator claims (though Volatire did, of course, assert 'What a fuss about an omelette!' on the burning of Helvetius' De l'esprit, according to James Parton's Life of Voltaire). I am highly familiar, old bean, with your 'knowledge of intellectual history': it's a joke.
-- OLIVER KAMM
"Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> This is really amusing. Kamm is now either pretending to be > clairvoyant or he's gone crazy and is seeing things (which > amounts to the same thing). As I made no reference to any > 'quotation', it follows as a matter of logic that I cannot be > ascribing it to Voltaire or anyone else.
> On the other hand, I *am* making the irrefutable claim that > for someone fond of quoting Voltaire, Kamm's inability to > distinguish between supporting someone's views and supporting > his right to express them, reeks of hypocrisy. For anyone > with an even cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work, this will > be obvious. The fact that I have to point this out also sheds > light on the unashamedly moronic level of Kamm's arguments.
> I presume that the 'quotation' to which Kamm alludes (and > which I did not allude to), is Evelyn Beatrice Hall's (aka > Tallentyre's) loose paraphrase of Voltaire in her book "The > Friends of Voltaire." Kamm, you know absolutely nothing about > me or the depth of my knowledge of intellectual history but, > I can assure you, you are treading on thin ice.
> Finally, we are STILL WAITING for Kamm to reply to a previous > post of mine, so I repeat it here. I look forward to laughing > at his 'answers'.
> ---- > I don't wish to be a party-pooper but, try as you might, the > phrase "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal" will never > constitute the kind of ringing endorsement of Faurisson that > you would want us to believe it is. It is, at worst, a > relatively neutral judgement which, in light of Chomsky's > explicit reference to Faurisson as "a lunatic" whose views > are "diametrically opposed" to his own, amounts to no more > than a big fat red herring.
> Further, given Kamm's apologias for fascists and war > criminals such as Pinochet and Henry Kissinger in this > very ng, it is rich in the extreme. > ----
> In article <Jz228.162$9t.154...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, > oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk says... > > Here we have it! On your own admission, Chomsky knew Faurisson to be a Nazi > > and yet described him as 'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal'. Thank > > you for being so candid as - eventually - to admit this aspect of the public > > record rather than obfuscate it.
> > That admission is humiliating enough for you, but it pales into > > insignificance compared with your reference to Voltaire. Rather like Mr > > Smith and his fabricated 'quotation' from Edmund Burke - which he eventually > > was forced to withdraw - it's patently obvious from the fabricated > > 'quotation' from Voltaire you claim to allude to that your grasp of > > intellectual history is exceedingly slight. If you wish to dispute that sad > > but irrefutable judgement, then I suggest you go right ahead and provide a > > source for this 'quotation'.
> > The rest of us will fall about laughing while you attempt it.
> > -- > > OLIVER KAMM > > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1011352537.18588.0.nnrp-07.3e310275@news.demon.co.uk... > > > Chomsky was aware of Faurisson's ludicrous claims and has consistently > > > denounced them as such (as demonstrated by the quotes below). He says he > > has > > > never read Faurisson's work, nor would he care to - either way it is > > > irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is about freedom of speech. For > > > someone fond of quoting Voltaire, your inability to distinguish between > > > defending someone's views and defending his right to express them is the > > > height of hypocrisy. The principle has been understood outside of fascist > > > circles since at least the 17th century.
> > > "Oliver Kamm" <oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:QVI18.3341$nA4.772158@monolith.news.easynet.net... > > > > Quite incomprehensible to me, I'm afraid, and indeed to the rest of the > > > ng. > > > > Are you suggesting that Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's > > > Nazism > > > > when he cheered for that bigot, or are you trying to evade the question? > > I > > > > think we should be told.
> > > > -- > > > > OLIVER KAMM > > > > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1011112930.10102.0.nnrp-02.3e310275@news.demon.co.uk... > > > > > An excerpt from an old thread should be humiliating enough for Oggie, > > > > > although based on past performance it won't shut him up - au > > contraire.
Once again, having made a complete fool of himself, Kamm attempts to cover himself through evasion. Just to make things as transparent as possible for his tired mind, there are at least four issues which Kamm has failed miserably to deal with:
1) I made no reference to any 'quotation' of Volatire's (sic) so, unless the 'Fabricator' in question is Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Kamm's remarks are beyond gibberish. By the way, Hall later claimed that she was paraphrasing Voltaire's "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too" from his Essay on Tolerance.
2) Kamm is displaying either his staggering ignorance or his mythomania by claiming that Voltaire was not an advocate of free speech! This is truly ridiculous, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work will know. If Kamm wasn't an all-round ignoramus, he would know that the omelette quote is not exclusive to Parton's biography and, that, indeed, it is standardly taken to be a criticism of the burning of De l'esprit. Furthermore, according to Joseph Lewis's "Voltaire: The Incomparable Infidel", Voltaire rather aptly also said "The burning of an author's books, imprisonment for opinion's sake, has always been the tribute that an ignorant age pays to the genius of its time."
3) Try as he might, the phrase "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal" will never constitute the kind of ringing endorsement of Faurisson that Kamm would want us to believe it is. It is, at worst, a relatively neutral judgement which, in light of Chomsky's explicit reference to Faurisson as "a lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own, amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.
4) Kamm's hypocrisy goes even further. While Chomsky's writings have consistently denounced Nazism, fascism, and totalitarianism in all its forms, Kamm sees fit to post apologias for fascists, terrorists and war criminals such as Pinochet and Henry Kissinger, in this very ng.
Now, in order to prevent himself from looking even more pathetic than he has until know, I'm sure Kamm will answer all four points carefully and thoroughly. Nevertheless, I am also sure that his four answers will provide much hilarity for us all.
In article <LpB28.566$9t.581...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk says...
> This is a hilariously ignorant post. Fortunately for its author, my sense of > scholarly standards prevents me from pointing out that he is a prize fathead > with a minuscule knowledge of French intellectual history, but I cannot > reputably desist from noting that he clearly finds much more to oppose in > democratic politicians than he does in Nazis. Clearly he lacks even a > cursory knowledge of Voltaire, who said nothing remotely comparable to what > the Fabricator claims (though Volatire did, of course, assert 'What a fuss > about an omelette!' on the burning of Helvetius' De l'esprit, according to > James Parton's Life of Voltaire). I am highly familiar, old bean, with your > 'knowledge of intellectual history': it's a joke.
> -- > OLIVER KAMM > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.16b4e78c4481886a989685@news.homechoice.co.uk... > > This is really amusing. Kamm is now either pretending to be > > clairvoyant or he's gone crazy and is seeing things (which > > amounts to the same thing). As I made no reference to any > > 'quotation', it follows as a matter of logic that I cannot be > > ascribing it to Voltaire or anyone else.
> > On the other hand, I *am* making the irrefutable claim that > > for someone fond of quoting Voltaire, Kamm's inability to > > distinguish between supporting someone's views and supporting > > his right to express them, reeks of hypocrisy. For anyone > > with an even cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work, this will > > be obvious. The fact that I have to point this out also sheds > > light on the unashamedly moronic level of Kamm's arguments.
> > I presume that the 'quotation' to which Kamm alludes (and > > which I did not allude to), is Evelyn Beatrice Hall's (aka > > Tallentyre's) loose paraphrase of Voltaire in her book "The > > Friends of Voltaire." Kamm, you know absolutely nothing about > > me or the depth of my knowledge of intellectual history but, > > I can assure you, you are treading on thin ice.
> > Finally, we are STILL WAITING for Kamm to reply to a previous > > post of mine, so I repeat it here. I look forward to laughing > > at his 'answers'.
> > ---- > > I don't wish to be a party-pooper but, try as you might, the > > phrase "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal" will never > > constitute the kind of ringing endorsement of Faurisson that > > you would want us to believe it is. It is, at worst, a > > relatively neutral judgement which, in light of Chomsky's > > explicit reference to Faurisson as "a lunatic" whose views > > are "diametrically opposed" to his own, amounts to no more > > than a big fat red herring.
This is hilariously ignorant. An anti-Semite is apparently a champion of free speech, commendation of book-burning is apparently condemnation, and it's absolutely fine to be neutral about Nazism. Note, however, that the Fathead is unable to cite a single instance of my supporting Pinochet, and gets worked about Kissinger but not about Holocaust deniers.
There's nothing to stop you incriminating you further as an ignoramus, old bean, but do try to read something about - if not by - Voltaire before displaying your ignorance in public again. It's not enough merely to be pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic to be a contributor to this ng, though clearly you have assumed that it is. -- OLIVER KAMM
"Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Once again, having made a complete fool of himself, Kamm > attempts to cover himself through evasion. Just to make > things as transparent as possible for his tired mind, there > are at least four issues which Kamm has failed miserably to > deal with:
> 1) I made no reference to any 'quotation' of Volatire's (sic) > so, unless the 'Fabricator' in question is Evelyn Beatrice > Hall, Kamm's remarks are beyond gibberish. By the way, Hall > later claimed that she was paraphrasing Voltaire's "Think for > yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too" > from his Essay on Tolerance.
> 2) Kamm is displaying either his staggering ignorance or his > mythomania by claiming that Voltaire was not an advocate of > free speech! This is truly ridiculous, as anyone with even a > cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work will know. If Kamm > wasn't an all-round ignoramus, he would know that the > omelette quote is not exclusive to Parton's biography and, > that, indeed, it is standardly taken to be a criticism of the > burning of De l'esprit. Furthermore, according to Joseph > Lewis's "Voltaire: The Incomparable Infidel", Voltaire > rather aptly also said "The burning of an author's books, > imprisonment for opinion's sake, has always been the tribute > that an ignorant age pays to the genius of its time."
> 3) Try as he might, the phrase "a sort of relatively > apolitical liberal" will never constitute the kind of ringing > endorsement of Faurisson that Kamm would want us to believe > it is. It is, at worst, a relatively neutral judgement which, > in light of Chomsky's explicit reference to Faurisson as "a > lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own, > amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.
> 4) Kamm's hypocrisy goes even further. While Chomsky's > writings have consistently denounced Nazism, fascism, and > totalitarianism in all its forms, Kamm sees fit to post > apologias for fascists, terrorists and war criminals such as > Pinochet and Henry Kissinger, in this very ng.
> Now, in order to prevent himself from looking even more > pathetic than he has until know, I'm sure Kamm will answer > all four points carefully and thoroughly. Nevertheless, I am > also sure that his four answers will provide much hilarity > for us all.
> In article <LpB28.566$9t.581...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, > oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk says... > > This is a hilariously ignorant post. Fortunately for its author, my sense of > > scholarly standards prevents me from pointing out that he is a prize fathead > > with a minuscule knowledge of French intellectual history, but I cannot > > reputably desist from noting that he clearly finds much more to oppose in > > democratic politicians than he does in Nazis. Clearly he lacks even a > > cursory knowledge of Voltaire, who said nothing remotely comparable to what > > the Fabricator claims (though Volatire did, of course, assert 'What a fuss > > about an omelette!' on the burning of Helvetius' De l'esprit, according to > > James Parton's Life of Voltaire). I am highly familiar, old bean, with your > > 'knowledge of intellectual history': it's a joke.
> > -- > > OLIVER KAMM > > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.16b4e78c4481886a989685@news.homechoice.co.uk... > > > This is really amusing. Kamm is now either pretending to be > > > clairvoyant or he's gone crazy and is seeing things (which > > > amounts to the same thing). As I made no reference to any > > > 'quotation', it follows as a matter of logic that I cannot be > > > ascribing it to Voltaire or anyone else.
> > > On the other hand, I *am* making the irrefutable claim that > > > for someone fond of quoting Voltaire, Kamm's inability to > > > distinguish between supporting someone's views and supporting > > > his right to express them, reeks of hypocrisy. For anyone > > > with an even cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work, this will > > > be obvious. The fact that I have to point this out also sheds > > > light on the unashamedly moronic level of Kamm's arguments.
> > > I presume that the 'quotation' to which Kamm alludes (and > > > which I did not allude to), is Evelyn Beatrice Hall's (aka > > > Tallentyre's) loose paraphrase of Voltaire in her book "The > > > Friends of Voltaire." Kamm, you know absolutely nothing about > > > me or the depth of my knowledge of intellectual history but, > > > I can assure you, you are treading on thin ice.
> > > Finally, we are STILL WAITING for Kamm to reply to a previous > > > post of mine, so I repeat it here. I look forward to laughing > > > at his 'answers'.
> > > ---- > > > I don't wish to be a party-pooper but, try as you might, the > > > phrase "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal" will never > > > constitute the kind of ringing endorsement of Faurisson that > > > you would want us to believe it is. It is, at worst, a > > > relatively neutral judgement which, in light of Chomsky's > > > explicit reference to Faurisson as "a lunatic" whose views > > > are "diametrically opposed" to his own, amounts to no more > > > than a big fat red herring.
> Talking of semi-literacy, you mean 'non sequitur', not 'sequitor'.
and here I was thinking that the presentation of an argument was the crucial issue in matters of debate. All this time I've been deluded. Tis the spelling thats important......
thanks Oliver.
> Chomsky described a man he knew to be a Nazi as 's sort of relatively > apolitical liberal'.
I didn't know F was a nazi. He has questioned an interpretation of particular historical events (given the sentiment involved he is a brave man indeed and most likely wrong). How does this in itself imply he was a Nazi?
Matthew Healey <md...@nospam.student.canterbury.ac.nz> writes: >Oliver Kamm wrote:
>> Talking of semi-literacy, you mean 'non sequitur', not 'sequitor'. >and here I was thinking that the presentation of an argument was the >crucial issue in matters of debate. All this time I've been deluded. Tis >the spelling thats important...... >thanks Oliver.
>> Chomsky described a man he knew to be a Nazi as 's sort of relatively >> apolitical liberal'.
This is a blatantly forged misquote: Chomsky referred to him as "_A_ sort of relatively apolitical liberal" (emphasis mine). It's obvious that Oliver Kamm is fabricating arguments. Has he stopped beating his wife yet?
(I'm sorry about that. Actually I think it's a rule that whenever you correct someone else's spelling or grammer you have to make a mistake yourself, like speling "grammar" wrong).
>I didn't know F was a nazi. He has questioned an interpretation of >particular historical events (given the sentiment involved he is a brave >man indeed and most likely wrong). How does this in itself imply he was >a Nazi?
That in itself doesn't, but Faurisson's other writings do contain a great deal of anti-Semitism. It's rather less clear to me if he is a proponent of "Natural Order" or any of the other tenets of the actual Nazi party. -- Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998 When crime is outlawed, only outlaws will commit crimes. LEGALIZE http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay CRIME
> Here we go again. A supporter of the Ku Klux Klan, one Samirhibri, posted > racist and Jew-hating filth to this ng. Mr Smith defended and cheered him. > That, I am afraid, is a matter of record.
here we go again indeed.
Mr. smith did no such thing as "cheering" or "defending".
Mr. Smith pointed out the racist nature and content of mr. samirhibris Duke quote.
THAT is I'm afraid the matter of record.
you lie outright mr. Kamm.
googles deja news service has recorded the event for all posterity for all those in doubt.
> -- > OLIVER KAMM > "john smith" <lagerboks-removeth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:3C47D855.411E4CB@yahoo.com... > > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > > On the contrary, I reserve the term 'Nazi' for those who are Nazis. One > > > instance would be the Klan supporter Samirhibri, whom Mr Smith welcomed > and > > > cheered.
> > once again Kamm cannot open his moth without slander and inaccuracies.
> > what constitutes "welcomes" and "cheers" on mr Kamms part is > > probably as totally uninteresting to the general public > > as it is a disgusting proof of the level of his "intellect".
> > I was in fact the FIRST to point out the > > racist/anti-semite contents, implications > > and consequences of mr Smirhibris "David Duke posting" .
> > Mr. Kamm yet again shows his vile and sickening method of "debate".
> > Ad Hominem ad infinitum ad nauseum.
> > > What is about Chomsky groupies that makes them attracted to Nazism,
> > more juvenile chatter.
> > > and what is it about them that makes Nazis attracted to them? Given that > > > these two observations are a matter of straightfoward record (Smith's > chum > > > Samirhibri actually posted Jew-hating articles by the Klansman David > Duke to > > > this ng, and Mr Smith found much in those posts of value),
> > A sickening insinuation at best.
> > My critic of tha state of Israel or rather its passing governments > > are my own. Mr. Kamm tries to ascribe any views that critisise Israel > > to equal and amount to being a nazi-sympathizer.
> > which only goes to show, and deepen the impression of Mr. Kamm as > > a true and disgusting juvenile slanderer.
> > > I hope we can > > > discuss this matter in a rational and objective manner. I'm genuinely > > > interested.
> > you pretend to be rational? > > objective?? > > now???
> > you dont find it a bit late to play that illusion upon us now?
> > > -- > > > OLIVER KAMM > > > "john smith" <lagerboks-removeth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:3C469C2A.2769FB9A@yahoo.com... > > > > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > > > > I'm not surprised Mr Smith finds anti-Semitism all a bit of a giggle > > > > > considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the > Ku > > > Klux > > > > > Klan. He does need to tell us directly, however: is he suggesting > that > > > > > Chomsky was completely unaware of Faurisson's opinions on the Nazi > > > > > persecution of the Jews when he, Chomsky, described Faurisson as 'a > sort > > > of > > > > > relatively apolitical liberal'?
> > > > > Reflect carefully before you answer, Mr Smith: you have come unstuck > > > badly > > > > > before now through not being in command of your facts.
> > > > "Reflect carefully before you answer," Mr Kamm, > > > > it will most certainly bring you a quite novel sensation.
> > > > For the rest of you, you should all be aware that mr. Kamm undoubtedly > > > > is a well known nazi-symapathizer considering his absurd utterances > > > > and pretense of supporting humanist and humanitarian values (and > > > > leftist?) > > > > although not very well. Its abundantly clear that he tries to do > > > > decent jews and israelis as much disservice as humanly possible, > amongst > > > > others by screaming bloody murder and "nazi" at every opportunity > > > > (and even when there is no such), but for the main part he uses his > > > > endless arsenal of slander, libel and juvenile attempts to label > > > > anyone and everyone a nazi-sympathiser, for critisising the various > > > > actions of the various governing political parties of Israel > > > > and their consequences.
> > > > Equally, it passes for logic in what can only be a very narrow mind, > > > > that since nazi-sympathisers also "critisise" Israeli governments > > > > actions > > > > anyone that holds critical views of Israeli governments and their > > > > actions > > > > must also "find holocaust a bit of a giggle", > > > > a sickening and disgusting juvenile repetition at best, a deliberate > > > > attempt > > > > to smear all debates to their lowest level, if anything.
> > > > One can only conclude that the one true disgusting neo-nazi > sympathizer > > > > here > > > > must be mr. Oliver Kamm himself , wether he understands it himself or > > > > not. QED.
> > > > --js
> > > > > -- > > > > > OLIVER KAMM > > > > > "john smith" <lagerboks-removeth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:3C440FA1.650AC905@yahoo.com... > > > > > > Glenn Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > > Oh god, not this rubbish again???!!!
> > > > > > > Chomsky was defending Faurrisan's (sp?) right to speak his mind. > He > > > was > > > > > not > > > > > > > defending the *thesis*.
> > > > > > > Jesus. It's such a *simple* point!
> > > > > > > Why can't people understand it???
> > > > > > > Glenn C.
> > > > > > yupp.
> > > > > > Now all we need is oggies/ollies "expert" dissertations for > another 2 > > > > > > months....
> > > considering the welcome he extended on this ng to supporters of the Ku Klux > > > Klan.
> > welcome?
> Yes, welcome. Mr. Samirhibri posted a racist antisemite article by a > Ku Klux Klansman, and you cheerfully called him a voice of reason. > Remember?
cheerfully?
an interpretation at best.
a juvenile attempt at supporting slander in reality.
and yes, critisism of Israeli oppression are voices of reason compared to much of the pro-israeli propaganda that emenates from some keyboards on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
I referr you all to Amnesty International's reports on the conflict.
But I suppose Mr.Kamm et al would consider Amnesty too as "nazi-sympathizers" since they too critisise Israeli government actions.
I think we can leave things at that, as it's clear that Kamm is digging his own hole. He fails to specifically address any of the points I made, choosing instead to resort to his usual puerile invective. In the first paragraph alone, I counted five outright lies.
For anyone who's interested, go to groups.google.com and search for Kamm and Pinochet.
Kamm has shown that he doesn't grasp even the most basic and fundamental aspects of Voltaire's thought. Not only has he misquoted secondary sources, he is also claiming that Voltaire advocated book-burning rather than freedom of speech.
This must be Kamm's only passtime, which explains why he just cannot stop, no matter how many turds his brain spawns, no matter how humiliated he is. Poor, poor Oggie.
In article <oHD28.600$9t.618...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk says...
> This is hilariously ignorant. An anti-Semite is apparently a champion of > free speech, commendation of book-burning is apparently condemnation, and > it's absolutely fine to be neutral about Nazism. Note, however, that the > Fathead is unable to cite a single instance of my supporting Pinochet, and > gets worked about Kissinger but not about Holocaust deniers.
> There's nothing to stop you incriminating you further as an ignoramus, old > bean, but do try to read something about - if not by - Voltaire before > displaying your ignorance in public again. It's not enough merely to be > pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic to be a contributor to this ng, though clearly you > have assumed that it is. > -- > OLIVER KAMM > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.16b5099236172926989686@news.homechoice.co.uk... > > Once again, having made a complete fool of himself, Kamm > > attempts to cover himself through evasion. Just to make > > things as transparent as possible for his tired mind, there > > are at least four issues which Kamm has failed miserably to > > deal with:
> > 1) I made no reference to any 'quotation' of Volatire's (sic) > > so, unless the 'Fabricator' in question is Evelyn Beatrice > > Hall, Kamm's remarks are beyond gibberish. By the way, Hall > > later claimed that she was paraphrasing Voltaire's "Think for > > yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too" > > from his Essay on Tolerance.
> > 2) Kamm is displaying either his staggering ignorance or his > > mythomania by claiming that Voltaire was not an advocate of > > free speech! This is truly ridiculous, as anyone with even a > > cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work will know. If Kamm > > wasn't an all-round ignoramus, he would know that the > > omelette quote is not exclusive to Parton's biography and, > > that, indeed, it is standardly taken to be a criticism of the > > burning of De l'esprit. Furthermore, according to Joseph > > Lewis's "Voltaire: The Incomparable Infidel", Voltaire > > rather aptly also said "The burning of an author's books, > > imprisonment for opinion's sake, has always been the tribute > > that an ignorant age pays to the genius of its time."
> > 3) Try as he might, the phrase "a sort of relatively > > apolitical liberal" will never constitute the kind of ringing > > endorsement of Faurisson that Kamm would want us to believe > > it is. It is, at worst, a relatively neutral judgement which, > > in light of Chomsky's explicit reference to Faurisson as "a > > lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own, > > amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.
> > 4) Kamm's hypocrisy goes even further. While Chomsky's
Our dear friend digs his own grave with commendable aplomb. Even disregarding his laughable grasp of French intellectual history, he fails to produce a single instance of my supposed support for Pinochet, hoping instead that no one will take the trouble to expose him as a congenital liar and fathead.
Unfortunately for him, I just have.
-- OLIVER KAMM
"Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I think we can leave things at that, as it's clear that Kamm > is digging his own hole. He fails to specifically address any > of the points I made, choosing instead to resort to his usual > puerile invective. In the first paragraph alone, I counted > five outright lies.
> For anyone who's interested, go to groups.google.com and > search for Kamm and Pinochet.
> Kamm has shown that he doesn't grasp even the most basic and > fundamental aspects of Voltaire's thought. Not only has he > misquoted secondary sources, he is also claiming that > Voltaire advocated book-burning rather than freedom of > speech.
> This must be Kamm's only passtime, which explains why he just > cannot stop, no matter how many turds his brain spawns, no > matter how humiliated he is. Poor, poor Oggie.
> In article <oHD28.600$9t.618...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, > oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk says... > > This is hilariously ignorant. An anti-Semite is apparently a champion of > > free speech, commendation of book-burning is apparently condemnation, and > > it's absolutely fine to be neutral about Nazism. Note, however, that the > > Fathead is unable to cite a single instance of my supporting Pinochet, and > > gets worked about Kissinger but not about Holocaust deniers.
> > There's nothing to stop you incriminating you further as an ignoramus, old > > bean, but do try to read something about - if not by - Voltaire before > > displaying your ignorance in public again. It's not enough merely to be > > pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic to be a contributor to this ng, though clearly you > > have assumed that it is. > > -- > > OLIVER KAMM > > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.16b5099236172926989686@news.homechoice.co.uk... > > > Once again, having made a complete fool of himself, Kamm > > > attempts to cover himself through evasion. Just to make > > > things as transparent as possible for his tired mind, there > > > are at least four issues which Kamm has failed miserably to > > > deal with:
> > > 1) I made no reference to any 'quotation' of Volatire's (sic) > > > so, unless the 'Fabricator' in question is Evelyn Beatrice > > > Hall, Kamm's remarks are beyond gibberish. By the way, Hall > > > later claimed that she was paraphrasing Voltaire's "Think for > > > yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too" > > > from his Essay on Tolerance.
> > > 2) Kamm is displaying either his staggering ignorance or his > > > mythomania by claiming that Voltaire was not an advocate of > > > free speech! This is truly ridiculous, as anyone with even a > > > cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work will know. If Kamm > > > wasn't an all-round ignoramus, he would know that the > > > omelette quote is not exclusive to Parton's biography and, > > > that, indeed, it is standardly taken to be a criticism of the > > > burning of De l'esprit. Furthermore, according to Joseph > > > Lewis's "Voltaire: The Incomparable Infidel", Voltaire > > > rather aptly also said "The burning of an author's books, > > > imprisonment for opinion's sake, has always been the tribute > > > that an ignorant age pays to the genius of its time."
> > > 3) Try as he might, the phrase "a sort of relatively > > > apolitical liberal" will never constitute the kind of ringing > > > endorsement of Faurisson that Kamm would want us to believe > > > it is. It is, at worst, a relatively neutral judgement which, > > > in light of Chomsky's explicit reference to Faurisson as "a > > > lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own, > > > amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.
> > > 4) Kamm's hypocrisy goes even further. While Chomsky's
> SNIP > > What I find most striking is not the mere suggestion that Faurisson is > > an "apolitical liberal" (though that is indeed striking) but the larger > > context of the essay
> Written by Faurisson himself.
My dear boy, It is obvious you do not have the first clue about what is being discussed. To save yourself further public humiliation, I strongly recommend you read "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression" by Chomsky, which is what Mr. Kamm, Matt and myself are talking about.
> > SNIP > > > What I find most striking is not the mere suggestion that Faurisson is > > > an "apolitical liberal" (though that is indeed striking) but the larger > > > context of the essay
> > Written by Faurisson himself.
> My dear boy, > It is obvious you do not have the first clue about what is being > discussed.
Yes I do I can read the post.
> To save yourself further public humiliation
I'll get over it.
> I strongly recommend you > read "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of > Expression" by Chomsky, which is what Mr. Kamm, Matt and myself are > talking about.
No your not. Oliver presented a Faurisson article and concluded from that"C supports Nazis etc". The conclusion did not follow from what was presented as evidence. I pointed this out a number of times.
If you wish to expand the domain of evidence used then do say so. I am not a mind reader you know.
Mr ZZTop8970 during the course of this thread you posted 4 times, 3 of those times you responded to my posts each time trying to suggest that C is a nazi cos he is defending F's right to present his thesis. I called nonsequitur but the only response I got was "you've spelled it wrong". Perhaps I'm missing some posts cos what you have to say is neither an argument nor presentation of fact. So unless you can actually show that "C is a nazi lover" I will take your belittlement as a compliment.
> > > SNIP > > > > What I find most striking is not the mere suggestion that Faurisson is > > > > an "apolitical liberal" (though that is indeed striking) but the larger > > > > context of the essay
> > > Written by Faurisson himself.
> > My dear boy, > > It is obvious you do not have the first clue about what is being > > discussed.
> Yes I do I can read the post.
No, you obviously can not. Matt's post above, to which you responded with the sentence "Written by Faurisson himself", refers to Chosmky's '"Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression", from which the infamous "apolitical liberal" quote is taken. that you do not recognize this shows your total unfamiliarity with the subject matter.
> > To save yourself further public humiliation
> I'll get over it.
> > I strongly recommend you > > read "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of > > Expression" by Chomsky, which is what Mr. Kamm, Matt and myself are > > talking about.
> No your not. Oliver presented a Faurisson article and concluded from > that"C supports Nazis etc". The conclusion did not follow from what was > presented as evidence. I pointed this out a number of times.
You wrote "Written by Faurisson himself" in response to a post by Matt that refers to a quote by CHomsky. Do yourself a favor and learn something about the topics you post about.
> If you wish to expand the domain of evidence used then do say so. I am > not a mind reader you know.
> Mr ZZTop8970 during the course of this thread you posted 4 times, 3 of > those times you responded to my posts each time trying to suggest that C > is a nazi cos he is defending F's right to present his thesis.
Nope. I have not done so even once. I am not suggesting the C is a Nazi. I am suggseting that when you and other Chomsky groupies call his essay in defence of Faurisson an excercise in fighting for free speech, you are either totaly ignorant of what Chomsky actually wrote, or worse, avoiding dealing with his support for Faurisson by eracting the free speech starwman. In your case, I believe it is the former, and renew my recomendation that you get yourself educated.
> I called > nonsequitur but the only response I got was "you've spelled it wrong". > Perhaps I'm missing some posts cos what you have to say is neither an > argument nor presentation of fact. So unless you can actually show that > "C is a nazi lover" I will take your belittlement as a compliment.
I assumed that the article being refered to was the one that was originally posted by Oliver.
> Matt's post above, to which you responded > with the sentence "Written by Faurisson himself", refers to Chosmky's > '"Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression"
After searching the thread I am unable to find where this was stated. Apologies if my newserver missed some posts.
> from which the infamous "apolitical liberal" quote is taken. that you > do not recognize this shows your total unfamiliarity with the subject > matter.
Of course.
> > No your not. Oliver presented a Faurisson article and concluded from > > that"C supports Nazis etc". The conclusion did not follow from what was > > presented as evidence. I pointed this out a number of times.
> You wrote "Written by Faurisson himself" in response to a post by Matt > that refers to a quote by CHomsky.
Matt wrote "but the larger context of the essay, in which Chomsky begins by saying he is only concerned with Faurisson's freedom of speech". Since I couldn't find any reference in the thread to any essay except the one posted by Oliver I assumed that Matt was refering to that one and had perhaps interpreted it is being written by Chomsky.
Do excuse me for being wrong but I was unable to find any reference to another essay.
> Do yourself a favor and learn > something about the topics you post about.
All along my posts have been to criticise the reasoning 'cos x supports y's right to present his thesis therefore x supports y's thesis'. Nothing more nothing less. Perhaps I missed a post where someone said "hey we are now refering to another essay then the one that was posted". I must have missed it.
> > If you wish to expand the domain of evidence used then do say so. I am > > not a mind reader you know.
> > Mr ZZTop8970 during the course of this thread you posted 4 times, 3 of > > those times you responded to my posts each time trying to suggest that C > > is a nazi cos he is defending F's right to present his thesis.
> Nope. I have not done so even once. I am not suggesting the C is a > Nazi.
My apologies all you've done so far is throw ad homs in an effort to make yourself look good at the expense of the mistakes of others.
> I am suggseting that when you and other Chomsky groupies call > his essay in defence of Faurisson an excercise in fighting for free > speech
You must have me confused with another I said nothing of the sort nor am I a Chomsky groupie (we've establish I haven't read this essay to which you refer)
> you are either totaly ignorant of what Chomsky actually wrote
I couldn't give a fig. I dont care if C is a Nazi. All I cared about is correcting Olivers obvious error in reasoning. You are entitled to your interpretation.
> or worse, avoiding dealing with his support for Faurisson by eracting > the free speech starwman.
It is irrelevant what C supports or denys. The point is what Oliver originally posted is not evidence for his claim.
and there wasn't a strawman in sight.
> In your case, I believe it is the former, and renew my recomendation > that you get yourself educated.
> > >Has anyone mentioned is downplaying of the victims of the holocaust in > > >Cambodia?
> > Has anybody mentioned the US media's downplaying the victims of the > > holocaust in E. Timor? > No, because they did no such thing. Did you read them at the time, or are > you just repeating something you were told but have never bothered to > research for yourself?
> > What do you creeps get out of hanging around the Alt.FAN.noam-chomsky > > group and dragging your tired, pointless propaganda into the > > conversation? Shouldn't you be in alt.fan.rupert-murdoch or something?
> Oh, so are you denying that Chomsky described a Nazi as 'a sort of > relatively apolitical liberal'? A one-word answer will do.
> > If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly > > to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when > > all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
> Our dear friend digs his own grave with commendable aplomb. Even > disregarding his laughable grasp of French intellectual history, he fails to > produce a single instance of my supposed support for Pinochet, hoping > instead that no one will take the trouble to expose him as a congenital liar > and fathead.
> Unfortunately for him, I just have.
Ah, but "nay" and "au contraire" dear Oggie, alas, you've done no such thing.
instead your ineptitude at defending your arguments with either reason or logic is seen more "like a stream of bats urine" ("one of Shaw's") "- it shines out like gold when all else is dark."
-- John Smith ( who probably is about to be slandered and accused by Mr. Oliver "J'accuse" Kamm of "fabricating" Shaw "quotes".
and for the rest of you, Oggie ("Mr. Kamm") seems to live and breathe by and for Shelley's words "the breath of accusation kills an innocent name" [Shelley]
> -- > OLIVER KAMM > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.16b5fc864789441c989687@news.homechoice.co.uk... > > I think we can leave things at that, as it's clear that Kamm > > is digging his own hole. He fails to specifically address any > > of the points I made, choosing instead to resort to his usual > > puerile invective. In the first paragraph alone, I counted > > five outright lies.
> > For anyone who's interested, go to groups.google.com and > > search for Kamm and Pinochet.
> > Kamm has shown that he doesn't grasp even the most basic and > > fundamental aspects of Voltaire's thought. Not only has he > > misquoted secondary sources, he is also claiming that > > Voltaire advocated book-burning rather than freedom of > > speech.
> > This must be Kamm's only passtime, which explains why he just > > cannot stop, no matter how many turds his brain spawns, no > > matter how humiliated he is. Poor, poor Oggie.
> > In article <oHD28.600$9t.618...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, > > oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk says... > > > This is hilariously ignorant. An anti-Semite is apparently a champion of > > > free speech, commendation of book-burning is apparently condemnation, > and > > > it's absolutely fine to be neutral about Nazism. Note, however, that the > > > Fathead is unable to cite a single instance of my supporting Pinochet, > and > > > gets worked about Kissinger but not about Holocaust deniers.
> > > There's nothing to stop you incriminating you further as an ignoramus, > old > > > bean, but do try to read something about - if not by - Voltaire before > > > displaying your ignorance in public again. It's not enough merely to be > > > pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic to be a contributor to this ng, though clearly > you > > > have assumed that it is. > > > -- > > > OLIVER KAMM > > > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:MPG.16b5099236172926989686@news.homechoice.co.uk... > > > > Once again, having made a complete fool of himself, Kamm > > > > attempts to cover himself through evasion. Just to make > > > > things as transparent as possible for his tired mind, there > > > > are at least four issues which Kamm has failed miserably to > > > > deal with:
> > > > 1) I made no reference to any 'quotation' of Volatire's (sic) > > > > so, unless the 'Fabricator' in question is Evelyn Beatrice > > > > Hall, Kamm's remarks are beyond gibberish. By the way, Hall > > > > later claimed that she was paraphrasing Voltaire's "Think for > > > > yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too" > > > > from his Essay on Tolerance.
> > > > 2) Kamm is displaying either his staggering ignorance or his > > > > mythomania by claiming that Voltaire was not an advocate of > > > > free speech! This is truly ridiculous, as anyone with even a > > > > cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work will know. If Kamm > > > > wasn't an all-round ignoramus, he would know that the > > > > omelette quote is not exclusive to Parton's biography and, > > > > that, indeed, it is standardly taken to be a criticism of the > > > > burning of De l'esprit. Furthermore, according to Joseph > > > > Lewis's "Voltaire: The Incomparable Infidel", Voltaire > > > > rather aptly also said "The burning of an author's books, > > > > imprisonment for opinion's sake, has always been the tribute > > > > that an ignorant age pays to the genius of its time."
> > > > 3) Try as he might, the phrase "a sort of relatively > > > > apolitical liberal" will never constitute the kind of ringing > > > > endorsement of Faurisson that Kamm would want us to believe > > > > it is. It is, at worst, a relatively neutral judgement which, > > > > in light of Chomsky's explicit reference to Faurisson as "a > > > > lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own, > > > > amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.
> > > > 4) Kamm's hypocrisy goes even further. While Chomsky's
> Our dear friend digs his own grave with commendable aplomb. Even > disregarding his laughable grasp of French intellectual history, he fails to > produce a single instance of my supposed support for Pinochet, hoping > instead that no one will take the trouble to expose him as a congenital liar > and fathead.
> Unfortunately for him, I just have.
Ah, but "nay" and "au contraire" dear Oggie, alas, you've done no so thing.
instead your ineptitude at defending your arguments with either reason or logic is seen more like a stream of bats urine ("one of Shaw's") - it shines out like gold when all else is dark.
-- John Smith ( who probably is about to be slandered and accused by Mr. Oliver "J'accuse" Kamm of "fabricating" Shaw "quotes".
and for the rest of you, Oggie ("Mr. Kamm") seems to live and breathe by and for Shelley's words "the breath of accusation kills an innocent name" [Shelley]
> -- > OLIVER KAMM > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.16b5fc864789441c989687@news.homechoice.co.uk... > > I think we can leave things at that, as it's clear that Kamm > > is digging his own hole. He fails to specifically address any > > of the points I made, choosing instead to resort to his usual > > puerile invective. In the first paragraph alone, I counted > > five outright lies.
> > For anyone who's interested, go to groups.google.com and > > search for Kamm and Pinochet.
> > Kamm has shown that he doesn't grasp even the most basic and > > fundamental aspects of Voltaire's thought. Not only has he > > misquoted secondary sources, he is also claiming that > > Voltaire advocated book-burning rather than freedom of > > speech.
> > This must be Kamm's only passtime, which explains why he just > > cannot stop, no matter how many turds his brain spawns, no > > matter how humiliated he is. Poor, poor Oggie.
> > In article <oHD28.600$9t.618...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, > > oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk says... > > > This is hilariously ignorant. An anti-Semite is apparently a champion of > > > free speech, commendation of book-burning is apparently condemnation, > and > > > it's absolutely fine to be neutral about Nazism. Note, however, that the > > > Fathead is unable to cite a single instance of my supporting Pinochet, > and > > > gets worked about Kissinger but not about Holocaust deniers.
> > > There's nothing to stop you incriminating you further as an ignoramus, > old > > > bean, but do try to read something about - if not by - Voltaire before > > > displaying your ignorance in public again. It's not enough merely to be > > > pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic to be a contributor to this ng, though clearly > you > > > have assumed that it is. > > > -- > > > OLIVER KAMM > > > "Criminy Jicket" <criminyjic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:MPG.16b5099236172926989686@news.homechoice.co.uk... > > > > Once again, having made a complete fool of himself, Kamm > > > > attempts to cover himself through evasion. Just to make > > > > things as transparent as possible for his tired mind, there > > > > are at least four issues which Kamm has failed miserably to > > > > deal with:
> > > > 1) I made no reference to any 'quotation' of Volatire's (sic) > > > > so, unless the 'Fabricator' in question is Evelyn Beatrice > > > > Hall, Kamm's remarks are beyond gibberish. By the way, Hall > > > > later claimed that she was paraphrasing Voltaire's "Think for > > > > yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too" > > > > from his Essay on Tolerance.
> > > > 2) Kamm is displaying either his staggering ignorance or his > > > > mythomania by claiming that Voltaire was not an advocate of > > > > free speech! This is truly ridiculous, as anyone with even a > > > > cursory knowledge of Voltaire's work will know. If Kamm > > > > wasn't an all-round ignoramus, he would know that the > > > > omelette quote is not exclusive to Parton's biography and, > > > > that, indeed, it is standardly taken to be a criticism of the > > > > burning of De l'esprit. Furthermore, according to Joseph > > > > Lewis's "Voltaire: The Incomparable Infidel", Voltaire > > > > rather aptly also said "The burning of an author's books, > > > > imprisonment for opinion's sake, has always been the tribute > > > > that an ignorant age pays to the genius of its time."
> > > > 3) Try as he might, the phrase "a sort of relatively > > > > apolitical liberal" will never constitute the kind of ringing > > > > endorsement of Faurisson that Kamm would want us to believe > > > > it is. It is, at worst, a relatively neutral judgement which, > > > > in light of Chomsky's explicit reference to Faurisson as "a > > > > lunatic" whose views are "diametrically opposed" to his own, > > > > amounts to no more than a big fat red herring.
> > > > 4) Kamm's hypocrisy goes even further. While Chomsky's
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:26:18 -0000, in <Ppe28.354$9t.292...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, "Oliver Kamm"
<oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote: > That libertarian position is one that I hold. We attack Chomsky for >whitewashing hate and lies, by calling a Nazi 'a relatively apolitical sort >of liberal'. Do you believe that a Nazi is a relatively apolitical sort of >liberal? If so, you are an anti-Semite.
Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively apolitical sort of liberal"? Also is it true that Faurisson is a Nazi, neo-nazi or anti-semite?
Of course I dont believe Chomsky is a anti-semite or nazi-sympathiser himself, but if all this is true it does seem a lapse on Chomsky's part.
> Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively > apolitical sort of liberal"? Also is it true that Faurisson is a Nazi, > neo-nazi or anti-semite?
> Of course I dont believe Chomsky is a anti-semite or nazi-sympathiser > himself, but if all this is true it does seem a lapse on Chomsky's > part.
b5...@NOSPAMtpg.com.au (Bernard Rooney) writes: > Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively > apolitical sort of liberal"?
This might have been remotely interesting if it was the case that this was Chomsky's only recorded comment on Faurisson and he refused to explain or expand on it. In the real world however, it is abundantly clear what Chomsky's stance towards Faurisson's views and Nazism, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust revisionism is. But this is of course besides the point if one is not interested in what Chomsky actually means, but rather wants to make incredibly cheap rhetorical points, reiterated 5 times every day.
> > Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively > > apolitical sort of liberal"?
> This might have been remotely interesting if it was the case that this > was Chomsky's only recorded comment on Faurisson and he refused to > explain or expand on it. In the real world however, it is abundantly > clear what Chomsky's stance towards Faurisson's views and Nazism, > anti-Semitism, and Holocaust revisionism is. But this is of course > besides the point if one is not interested in what Chomsky actually > means, but rather wants to make incredibly cheap rhetorical points, > reiterated 5 times every day.
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:26:18 -0000, in > <Ppe28.354$9t.292...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, "Oliver Kamm" > <oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > That libertarian position is one that I hold. We attack Chomsky for > >whitewashing hate and lies, by calling a Nazi 'a relatively apolitical sort > >of liberal'. Do you believe that a Nazi is a relatively apolitical sort of > >liberal? If so, you are an anti-Semite.
> Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively > apolitical sort of liberal"?
These are his own words: "Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."
> Also is it true that Faurisson is a Nazi, neo-nazi or anti-semite?
As Chomsky says, maybe, maybe not. The point is that the burden of proof is on those making the claim, and they have not provided evidence that this is the case. Note in particular that being a Holocaust Revisionist does not necessarily imply Nazism or anti-Semitism, as there have been a fair number of Holocaust Revisionists who were neither Nazis nor anti-Semites.
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote: > Bernard Rooney wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:26:18 -0000, in > > <Ppe28.354$9t.292...@monolith.news.easynet.net>, "Oliver Kamm" > > <oliver.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > > That libertarian position is one that I hold. We attack Chomsky for > > >whitewashing hate and lies, by calling a Nazi 'a relatively apolitical sort > > >of liberal'. Do you believe that a Nazi is a relatively apolitical sort of > > >liberal? If so, you are an anti-Semite.
> > Is it in fact true that Chomsky called Faurisson "a relatively > > apolitical sort of liberal"?
> These are his own words: "Putting this central issue aside, > is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? > As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from > what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the > attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either > conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material > that I have read concerning him, either in the public record > or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he > is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."
ok thanks. This quote (source?) does help put this long debate in some sort of context.
Mr Kamm has been trying awfully hard to put the word on Chomsky, but it clearly doesnt follow from the quoted material. Chomsky says he doesnt know his work very well, and ventures an opinion on what little he knows.
> > Also is it true that Faurisson is a Nazi, neo-nazi or anti-semite?
> As Chomsky says, maybe, maybe not. The point is that the > burden of proof is on those making the claim, and they have > not provided evidence that this is the case. Note in > particular that being a Holocaust Revisionist does not > necessarily imply Nazism or anti-Semitism, as there have > been a fair number of Holocaust Revisionists who were > neither Nazis nor anti-Semites.
Kamm states that Chomsky "knew" faurisson is a nazi, but evidence for this conclusion also is not available?
