Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Oliver Kamm's Methodology - The "Nazi" Attack: A Case Study in Deception

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Josh Dougherty

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 9:39:48 PM11/22/02
to
As veteran readers of this newsgroup are likely well aware, one of Oliver
Kamm's favorite attacks on anyone that challenges him is to call them a
Nazi, or Nazi-sypathizer, or supporter of Nazi something-or-other. It seems
that everyone who challenges him, sooner or later, is revealed as a "Nazi"
of some sort or another. As far as i can recall, I don't believe I've yet
received the honor of being targeted and slandered as such by Kamm, but this
has changed since the 20th of November.

So let's take a look at his methods for arriving at his "conclusions" on
this matter, shall we?

It all started when, in one of my recent threads: "Great Zinn Article About
Vet's Day"....Oliver Kamm opens a post by saying the following......

> "For the record, Dougherty in another thread expresses his belief that
> Nazism is a perfectly benign creed..."[1]

Now, for some odd reason, I don't recall expressing my (sic) belief that
"Nazism is a perfectly benign creed".

But then I see in another thread: "The Scholarly [Double] Standards of
Oliver
Kamm", that Oliver had constructed a whopper of a straw man in response to
me saying: "In what sense was anything that he (Andy Newton) posted
"pro-Nazi" Oliver?"

I posted this response to Kamm because he made a claim that Andy Newton had
posted "pro-Nazi material" to this newsgroup.[2] Kamm made this claim with
no
further elaboration or citation of any kind spelling out what specifically
he was referring to as the "pro-Nazi
material", nor in what post, or in what context Andy posted this supposed
"pro-Nazi material".

I have seen a number of Newton's posts and have not seen him post "pro-Nazi
material". I'm also quite aware of Kamm's tendency toward blatant
dishonesty, particularly when attacking his opponents. So, obviously, I
felt quite correct,
and still do, in demanding that Kamm back up his claim. (He is still yet to
back it up with anything other than his own words btw)

Well, in response to my demand, Kamm then claims I've stated that I "see
nothing sinister in calling for support for Nazism", and also that I
"believe a leader of a Nazi movement is a perfectly reasonable man" among
other pro-Nazi views that Kamm attributes to me.

These accusations occur in the same post where he, for the first time in the
thread, actually says what he is referring to as the "pro-Nazi material"
that Newton posted. Prior to this all the information given is a generic
accusation that Newton had posted
"pro-Nazi material" in a thread 222 posts long, and in which Newton authored
probably most of the posts therein.

So he's already leveling harsh condemnations of my rabid nazi-sypathies in
the first post where he actually reveals what the hell he is talking about.

Well, now let's see what he is talking about. Oliver says that Andy Newton
had posted a "Nazi" website to the ng (a link to a website of Martin Webster
it turns out). Therefore my having asked: "In what sense was anything he
posted "pro-Nazi"?", prior to Kamm even stating what he was talking about no
less, iow..prior to him actually providing any evidence for his claims,
means the following:

> "Clearly either your political knowledge is pitiable or you see nothing
> sinister in calling for support for Nazism, or - as the first is
undeniable
> and the second is what you've just indulged in - both."

So, first, my "political knoledge is pitiable" because I did not see this
supposed "pro-Nazi material" posted by Andy Newton (we'll get to this
later), and because I was unable to read Kamm's mind by immediately
connecting that Kamm's pithy and generic assertion that Newton had "posted
pro-Nazi material" meant the specific post and reference to this Martin
Webster link that Kamm was thinking of, but did not cite or mention.

Second, Kamm attributes the belief to me that I "see nothing sinister in
calling for support of Nazism". Wouldn't I, in the first place, have to
"see" what the hell Kamm was talking about before I could even make any such
determination? Not to mention, was Andy even "calling for support of
Nazism"? (we'll get to that
later too) And therefore, would I see "nothing wrong" with it if I had been
given the opportunity to make such a determination, for instance if i could
even see if any such "call" had been made?

Kamm continues....

> "So Dougherty believes it's a smear to criticise Nazis.

adding....

> "That's what he says"[3]

Um, no. Like the supposed "belief" that I "expressed" in the quote at the
top of this post, this is mysteriously also nothing I recall saying. (hint:
the mystery is solved because I didn't say it)

So, Kamm invents the belief that "Nazism is a perfectly benign creed",
states the view in his own post, attributes it to me, and then, in another
thread, states that it is "on the record" that I "expressed the view"!!!!

But let's look a little closer.

The basis for this, is one single question I asked of what Andy supposedly
posted that was "pro-Nazi", one question where I demanded, correctly, that
Oliver Kamm back up an accusation like that. This one statement of mine
Kamm has turned into all of *my* (sic) "expressions" of views that he's
invented himself.

Now, let's look at how he did this. He says that Andy posted the website of
a Nazi: Martin Webster. Since Andy did this, that means he's "calling for
support for Nazism". And since I, not even knowing about this post in the
first place, nor even knowing that Kamm was referring to it since he didn't
say until he had already begun attacking my "Nazism", asked in what sense
anything Andy supposedly posted that was "pro-Nazi"..............

Therefore, I now "express the view" that "Nazism is a perfectly benign
creed" and it's also "on the record" that I find nothing wrong with "calling
for support for Nazism"!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's look even deeper.

The post to which Oliver is referring, the basis for all of this, is
apparently (since he's never actually cited it) this one where Andy, after
being repeatedly challenged on the accuracy of quotes he had posted in the
beginning of the thread, it would appear, did a search for the quotes and
turned up a number of websites that also contained them. He posted the list
of the pages.

Here's his post. Be sure to read what Andy says, as well as looking at the
links.

> > > > > Andy Newton <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<3DB29072...@xtra.co.nz>...
> > > > > For those following along, here are alternative references for the
same
> > > > > quotes provided in my original post.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.allaahuakbar.net/jew/who_is_the_terrorist.htm
> > > > > http://www.stlimc.org/front.php3?article_id=3215&group=webcast
> > > > > http://www.fredriknorman.com/archives/mt/000471.php
> > > > > http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/palestinians.html
> > > > > http://www.mideastjournal.com/zionquotes1.html
> > > > > http://www.abdulmalik.net/israeliquotes.php
> > > > > http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Martin_Webster_01.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless Oliver can provide very good reasons that each and every
one of
> > > > > these sites should be disregarded, his continued refusal to
address more
> > > > > than 1 of the 10 quotes I provided does not appear as scholarly as
he
> > > > > would hope.[4]

Ok. See the "Martin Webster" link at the bottom of the list there? Ok,
that's Kamm's
whole argument. That is Andy Newton "calling for the support of Nazism".

Therefore, me, not having known that this Martin Webster is a "Nazi", nor
who he even is, nor recalling that Andy had even posted a website of this
particular person, nor Kamm even mentioning that this was what he was
referring to in the post to which I responded, nor having any opportunity to
check Kamm's claims for myself, questioning Kamm's charge is the evidence
that I "express the view that Nazism is a perfectly benign creed".

There you have it!

Now, before getting to the absurd claim about me, is Andy even "calling for"
anything other than to show that his quotes were contained in numerous
websites? Did he say anything in support of Webster's views? Does he even
know who Webster is? None of this is evident, in either the affirmative or
the negative, in the post.

However, there does seem to be one thing on which Kamm is correct, in a
technical sense. We might call this the "kernel of truth" from which the
tree of lies has sprung. Having briefly looked at the site in question,
(now having the opportunity thanks to my own initiative and not to Oliver
Kamm) it
seems that this "jrbooks" site, and thereby most likely this Webster
character too, is basically a kind of white-supremacist nazi-sympathizer
site. So, Kamm's statement that Andy Newton had posted "pro-Nazi material"
to the newsgroup does appear to be true technically, or more accurately, it
is, in itself alone, not technically a lie.

Newton did in fact "post pro-Nazi material to this newsgroup", namely, a
link in a list of
links to sites that contained the same quotes he had earlier quoted from
still another site. This is the tiny seed of "truth" from which Oliver has
invented an elaborate series of accusations (read: lies), a huge series of
motives and "beliefs" that, after inventing them, he then proceeded to
attribute to others and to me, saying that I hold these "beliefs", that I've
"said" the things Oliver invented, and that all of this is "facts" that are
"on the record"!!!!

So, in any case, what does this mean for Newton? Is this evidence of his
"calling for support for Nazism"? Is this evidence for anything that Kamm
has since claimed about him, let alone me, other than the initial "kernel of
truth"
itself? I'd say that, in order to determine this, it would perhaps be
reasonable to defer to yet more of the methods employed by the accusor.
Let's take a look.

Now, In the same thread that Newton posted the links, Kamm also writes, in
attacking Newton's list of
sites, that all of the quotes are copied from the same thing. They're all
"cut-and-paste" jobs. He appeals to "Ockam's Razor" in order to seal his
victory over his opponent when he writes:

> "..but it is an extraordinary coincidence that they should have ALL made
> EXACTLY THE SAME mistakes, and in every single
> case. So Newton, invoking Occam's Razor: case closed; you lose."[5]

Admittedly, I have not read through the entire thread, or its myriad of
arguments, but the above assertion by Kamm would appear to be fairly
reasonable. So, if Kamm is a believer in Occam's Razor, seeing how this
principle sealed his "victory" over Newton, how in the world did he jump to
the conclusions that Andy was "commending" the views of this guy Webster,
and further "calling for the support of Nazism"?

What Occam's Razor would lead you toward right away is that Newton punched
his intial quotes into a search engine, turned up a bunch of sites that also
contained the exact same quotes, and then he posted the list of sites in an
attempt to substantiate that the quotes were valid. Period. It would take
making a gigantic leap from the principle of Occam's Razor to even begin
assuming what Newton thinks of the views expressed by any of these websites
in general, since this is never expressed, or if he even knew what they
were, but rather that they merely contained the quotes he was interested in
finding at the time.

Now, based on the context of the "kernel", conveniently withheld by Kamm
until his lies about me were "on record" (because he invented them and
stated them), it's my view--one i actually hold, not one invented by someone
else and then attributed to me--that Oliver obviously has no commitment to
Occam's Razor and certainly has not attempted to defer to it here. His
entire web of lies would have fallen apart before it had even begun if he
had any such deference to this principle. So, that is out of the question.

Clearly (again a belief I actually hold) nor does he have any commitment
whatsoever to scholarly standards or honesty, or any other principles for
that matter. The only thing he has a commitment to is discrediting and/or
slandering anyone that challenges him, at any cost, regardless of the facts,
and never-ever-ever conceding a point to anyone. Andy happened to be, it
would seem from the information that is actually available at this point,
the quite
innocent victim in this particular instance. And, by extension, I'm now his
new target of an attack built on top of the razor (no pun) thin credibility
of this assault on Andy.

So, from top to bottom, Oliver's entire "Nazi" thing in reference to me is
nothing but a string of bald-faced lies all of Oliver's own invention, based
on still more of his own lies, based on his own misrepresentations and wild
extrapolations..........based on a "kernel of truth".

At the end of this web, and purely of his own invention, Oliver claims that
it's "on record" that "Dougherty in another thread expresses his belief that
Nazism is a perfectly benign creed."

This "belief" of mine (sic), as well as all those other "pro-Nazi" sypathies
of mine (sic) expressed above by, and invented by, Oliver Kamm and
attributed to me are to be found in this sentence of mine:

-----"In what sense was anything that he posted "pro-Nazi" Oliver?"-----

Bingo! There it is! My rabid pro-Nazism is exposed for all to see!

Total and complete lie, top to bottom. Hopefully this post will help those
who attempt to engage Kamm in the future to understand what's going on when
they are suddenly confronted with the "fact" that they are some kind of
Nazi, and that they hold beliefs that they do not hold, and have said things
that they have never said.

Welcome to the land of Oliver Kamm's methodology my fellow participants of
a.f.n.c.

Josh

Refs.
[1] Oliver Kamm - Subject: Re: Great Zinn article about Vet's Day
Date: 2002-11-20 15:35:39 PST

[2] Oliver Kamm - Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm
Date: 2002-11-20 01:49:04 PST

[3] Oliver Kamm - Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm
Date: 2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

[4] Andy Newton - Subject: Re: Chomsky's call for the destruction of Israel
Date: 2002-10-20 04:15:40 PST

[5] Oliver Kamm - Subject: Re: Chomsky's call for the destruction of Israel
Date: 2002-10-28 15:15:28 PST


Oliver Kamm

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 5:09:49 AM11/23/02
to
"Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message news:<UTBD9.5233$It3.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

> As veteran readers of this newsgroup are likely well aware, one of Oliver
> Kamm's favorite attacks on anyone that challenges him is to call them a
> Nazi, or Nazi-sypathizer, or supporter of Nazi something-or-other. It seems
> that everyone who challenges him, sooner or later, is revealed as a "Nazi"
> of some sort or another. As far as i can recall, I don't believe I've yet
> received the honor of being targeted and slandered as such by Kamm, but this
> has changed since the 20th of November.

[sophistry and special pleading snipped]

It's fascinating - actually not particularly fascinating, but
revealing - that Dougherty can expend so much effort striking at straw
men and yet not once attempt to address the issue at hand. I have very
carefully not described him as a Nazi, a Nazi sympathiser, or anything
comparable. I have pointed out that he regards Nazism as a reasonable
standpoint to take in the debates on this ng (and specifically
regarding Zionism). That inference is ineluctable given his refusal to
condemn Newton's posting pro-Nazi material to this ng. Those who have
had the unwarranted patience to read Dougherty's post to the end will
note that he *still* refuses to condemn Newton's posting of pro-Nazi
material, and will thus see the disturbing truth of this inference.

Josh Dougherty

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 5:23:17 AM11/23/02
to
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40cd7d30.02112...@posting.google.com...

I humbly direct readers of this Kamm response to read my initial post here,
and am quite happy to leave it to them to make their own determinations on
this issue.

And for the record Oliver, and since you've decided that this is the issue,
you are correct. I do now (having been denied the necessary information to
make such a determination previously) refuse to condemn Andy Newton for
posting pro-Nazi material.

I do this for the reasons outlined, I think, pretty clearly in my initial
post in this thread. Again I leave it to the readers of these posts to
determine whether my position on this is "sinister" or legitimate given the
context which I, and not Oliver, have now provided and cited for the
readers.

Josh


Oliver Kamm

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 10:06:54 AM11/23/02
to

"Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message
news:pGID9.5385$OZ4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> And for the record Oliver, and since you've decided that this is the
issue,
> you are correct. I do now (having been denied the necessary information
to
> make such a determination previously) refuse to condemn Andy Newton for
> posting pro-Nazi material.

Precisely. You refuse to condemn the dissemination of pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi,
racist, antisemitic material. That's my point - which you have been
blustering and huffing about before finally being forced to admit its
accuracy. Case closed - and it speaks for itself.


Nathan Folkert

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 2:15:25 PM11/23/02
to
In the past few weeks, several posters have asserted that Kamm is a
liar, a troll, a madman, and a prick, who is utterly irrelevant and
who no one pays any attention to.

These posters told us this in between lengthy, footnoted posts running
into dozens of pages "exposing" some irrelevancy about Kamm's personal
life or rhetoric, posts which required them to scour newsgroups and
internet news archives, or read biographies of British politicians off
of scans that a friend made (in spite of this scholarly dedication, at
least one is remarkably reluctant to take thirty seconds to try typing
"Martin Webster" and "Nazi" or "Kenyatta" into google, just to see if
maybe Newton actually was getting some of his information on Israel
from a violent, racist anti-Semite).

At the same time, at least two posters have written fantasy scenarios
involving the use of physical violence against Kamm for what he has
said here, and I strongly suspect that one pseudonymous poster is an
obsessive net-stalker who has been pursuing Kamm for months or years
under one nickname or another.

I've been accused here of obsession myself (by at least one of these
posters, in fact), so I doubt that my advice will have much sway, but
perhaps you guys could ponder it anyway:

If you believe that Kamm is an irrelevant troll, then rather than
obsessively researching his personal life, scouring the internet for
damaging material, or writing posts that depict the use of physical
violence to silence him, perhaps you should try ignoring him.

- Nate

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 6:22:50 PM11/23/02
to

"Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:4b923300.02112...@posting.google.com...


> If you believe that Kamm is an irrelevant troll, then rather than
> obsessively researching his personal life, scouring the internet for
> damaging material, or writing posts that depict the use of physical
> violence to silence him, perhaps you should try ignoring him.
>

A wise observation. We do seem to be getting into some quite bizarre
territory when it becomes a matter of controversy whether posting overtly
Nazi material is an act that should be condemned or not.

That relates to my more general observation about the Chomsky cult - a noun
that I use with some care. The record of this man, a linguist but not a
political theorist or economist, is by any objective standards tainted by
actions that are at the very least morally dubious. I think in particular of
his defence of the character - not necessarily the empirical content, but
the moral character - of Robert Faurisson's opinion that the Holocaust is a
hoax perpetrated by a Jewish conspiracy in order to extort money. Such
sentiments from Chomsky have caused previously sympathetic observers (e.g.
Paul Berman) to dismiss him as a crank, and have confirmed to critics that
he isn't even a serious and reputable opponent.

Let us leave aside the empirical and philosophical paucity of Chomsky's
political writings, about which much could be said. What is most striking
about his following is that it will brook no criticism whatsoever of the
master, not even for actions that are clearly in violation not only of any
liberalism or progressivism worth the name but also of basic civilised
values. If Chomsky had merely defended the right of free speech to those who
hold repellent opinions, almost no critic - and certainly not I - would find
anything to criticise in his stance. If he had refrained from eliding the
distinction between criticism of US foreign policy and indulgence of the
totalitarian nightmare states that succeeded US defeat in Vietnam (in the
manner of, say, Michael Walzer), he would invite disagreement but not
contempt. These are straightfoward considerations of basic values that ought
to be accepted by anyone claiming to stand within the spectrum of democratic
politics. Yet Chomsky's cult, of which the sentiments on this ng are sadly
representative, will not even condemn the defence of the content of a
Holocaust denier's speech, and in the astonishing case of one recent poster
to the ng who linked to the most appalling racist material, won't even
condemn the dissemination of such material (presumably for fear of breaching
orthodoxy).

Strange, but true - and therefore authentically cult-like.


Josh Dougherty

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 6:41:25 PM11/23/02
to
"Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:4b923300.02112...@posting.google.com...
> (in spite of this scholarly dedication, at
> least one is remarkably reluctant to take thirty seconds to try typing
> "Martin Webster" and "Nazi" or "Kenyatta" into google, just to see if
> maybe Newton actually was getting some of his information on Israel
> from a violent, racist anti-Semite).

As to this point Nathan, in my case, isn' this precisely what wound up
happening? Didn't I have to go take (a bit more than) thirty seconds typing
"Martin Webster" into google to figure out and detangle Kamm's web of lies
and figure out the context of the whole situation for myself?

Kamm made this harsh accusation against Newton, and I challenged him to back
it up. He did not and began calling me "Nazi" this...and "Nazi" that.

So you believe Nathan, that it's *my job*, to seek out the information that
might back up his accusation, and not Oliver's to actually produce the
relevant evidence to back up his own accusation, even after being demanded
he do so?

I think you're smart enough to realize how deceptive he was if you had taken
thirty seconds to read my post, and i'm rather surprised at you for
portraying him as some kind of victim the moment someone actually goes to
the trouble to take the distortions he litters this ng with.

Josh


Oliver Kamm

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 6:59:43 PM11/23/02
to

"Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message news:FmUD9.6577

> Kamm made this harsh accusation against Newton, and I challenged him to
back
> it up. He did not and began calling me "Nazi" this...and "Nazi" that.

I'm not surprised Dougherty wishes to rewrite this recent exchange, but he
has the disadvantage of its being on record. I carefully did not call him
'Nazi this': I stated that he considered Nazism to be a reasonable position
to promulgate. That is an ineluctable implication of the fact that he
refused to condemn Andy Newton's posting of overtly pro-Nazi material to the
ng. Dougherty bizarrely is complaining of my supposed unfairness when he has
already posted to this ng an admission that he does indeed refuse to condemn
Newton's dissemination of Nazi material.

In other words, he confirms precisely and explicitly the observation that I
have made about him, and it is therefore patently disingenuous of him now to
complain of the unfairness of it all.

That is my point about cults: they have an internal logic of their own that
is entirely divorced from the normal canons of evidence, critical thinking,
and in this case decency.


Josh Dougherty

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 7:14:04 PM11/23/02
to
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3de00...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

>
> "Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:4b923300.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> > If you believe that Kamm is an irrelevant troll, then rather than
> > obsessively researching his personal life, scouring the internet for
> > damaging material, or writing posts that depict the use of physical
> > violence to silence him, perhaps you should try ignoring him.
> >
>
> A wise observation. We do seem to be getting into some quite bizarre
> territory when it becomes a matter of controversy whether posting overtly
> Nazi material is an act that should be condemned or not.

In my view, discussing them is not bizarre in the least. These matters are
not a totalitarian monolith where to discuss them or look at contexts is
some kind of "thought-crime" out of 1984, however much you'd like them to
be.

And, you're talking about a few different things. You are now talking about
the "act" being condemned. You've been demanding that I condemn the person
who comitted the "act". Those are two different things.

As to condemning the "act", I'd be glad to do so, with a very broad degree
of variation as to what the "condemnation" would entail depending on the
actual facts behind the "act". For instance, if a person had inadvertently
posted a link to a website that turned out to hold pro-Nazi sypathies, that
would be a mistake. And in that case I suppose the "act" could still be
worthy of "condemnation" in a very mild form..ie: as the person made a
mistake. In such a case, on the other hand, I certainly would not rush to
"condemn" the person, ie: Andy Newton, which you've demanded that I do
without, in my view, any grounds for doing so.

On the other hand, if the person intentionally posted a link to a pro-Nazi
website calling for support of the pro-Nazi views it was putting forth. In
that case, I believe the act is certainly worthy of condemnation, and the
person would also be worthy of condemnation for such an act.

Quite different scenarios all, and there'd be much more variables depending
on the actual context. In any case, I'm not going to follow you in removing
any and all context from such an "act", making all discussion of it "evil"
and "bizarre", and turning any such "act" or debate over it, no matter what
the context, into a totalitarian monolith of Orwellian "thought-crime".

Josh


Oliver Kamm

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 7:20:27 PM11/23/02
to

"Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message
news:gRUD9.6620$It3.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

In any case, I'm not going to follow you in removing
> any and all context from such an "act", making all discussion of it "evil"
> and "bizarre", and turning any such "act" or debate over it, no matter
what
> the context, into a totalitarian monolith of Orwellian "thought-crime".

Indeed, I believe that posting material that defames Jews and promotes
Nazism is evil, and I condemn the man who does it. In all cases. We have
therefore reached an impasse.


Josh Dougherty

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 7:44:47 PM11/23/02
to
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3de01...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

Yes. We have. You believe that a mistake is evil. I refuse to follow you
into that idiocy.


Josh Dougherty

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 8:44:50 PM11/23/02
to
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3de01...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message news:FmUD9.6577
> > Kamm made this harsh accusation against Newton, and I challenged him to
> back
> > it up. He did not and began calling me "Nazi" this...and "Nazi" that.
>
> I'm not surprised Dougherty wishes to rewrite this recent exchange, but he
> has the disadvantage of its being on record. I carefully did not call him
> 'Nazi this': I stated that he considered Nazism to be a reasonable
position
> to promulgate.

....which is a lie. I've never said any such thing.

> refused to condemn Andy Newton's posting of overtly pro-Nazi material to
the
> ng. Dougherty bizarrely is complaining of my supposed unfairness when he
has
> already posted to this ng an admission that he does indeed refuse to
condemn
> Newton's dissemination of Nazi material.

Of course I refuse, for the reasons stated very clearly in my post "Oliver
Kamm's Methodology - The 'Nazi' Attack: A Case Study in Deception." And,
because to do so would require me to--like you--lie, omit the context of
said posting, and turn this whole issue into a totalitarian thought-crime
out of 1984, regardless of any context, and condemn someone as a
Nazi-sympathizer for what would appear to have been a completely inadvertent
mistake on his part.

If it does turn out that Newton intended to post and disseminate Nazi views,
then I would condemn him for that. At this point that seems highly
unlikely, and the only reason I'd have for doing so now would be if I was an
opportunist and a liar who had ulterior motives for attempting to paint
others as Nazi-sypathizers when there's no evidence to that effect.

> In other words, he confirms precisely and explicitly the observation that
I
> have made about him, and it is therefore patently disingenuous of him now
to
> complain of the unfairness of it all.

For the record, here are the lies that Oliver Kamm wrote about me (that he
says I've now "confirmed precisely and explicitly") in succession:

1] "You see nothing sinister in calling for support for Nazism."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:


2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

2] "Dougherty believes it's a smear to criticise Nazis. That's what he
says."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:


2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

3] "[Dougherty] believes a leader of a Nazi movement is a perfectly
reasonable man."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:


2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

4] "[Dougherty] has also demonstrated something we didn't know before: he
sees nothing sinister in Nazism."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:


2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

5] "For the record, Dougherty in another thread expresses his belief that


Nazism is a perfectly benign creed"

Subject: Re: Great Zinn article about Vet's Day - Date: 2002-11-20 15:35:39
PST

6] "To be precise, Dougherty disputed that there was anything pro-Nazi about
a man who led the National Socialist Movement and the National Front, and
who expressed his wish to 'build a well-oiled Nazi machine' in Great
Britain."
Subject: Re: Great Zinn article about Vet's Day - Date: 2002-11-21 01:00:40
PST

7] "... given his assumption that Nazism is perfectly within the bounds of
reasonable opinion."
Subject: Re: Great Zinn article about Vet's Day - Date: 2002-11-21 01:00:40
PST

8] "...considers it perfectly legitimate to cite Webster as an authority on
matters to do with Jews."
Subject: Ng members use Nazi sources - Date: 2002-11-21 15:47:05 PST

9] "[Dougherty] now reasons that that Nazi material ain't so bad after all"
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:
2002-11-21 05:49:41 PST

10] "So for Dougherty the statement of intent to build a "well-oiled Nazi
machine" is plainly a perfectly unexceptionable aim"
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:
2002-11-21 05:49:41 PST

11] "Dougherty has already admitted to this ng that he sees nothing untoward
in posting Nazi material."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:
2002-11-21 06:12:48 PST

12] "Dougherty has already told us that he sees nothing wrong in Nazi
propaganda"
Subject: Re: The Kamm Konundrum: "Uncle Martin"??? - Date: 2002-11-22
01:55:17 PST

13] "Some of us condemn Nazism and antisemitism; Dougherty can see nothing
wrong with them."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:
2002-11-22 02:04:20

Each of the above statements by Oliver Kamm (and there are likely a few more
I've missed) is a flagrant lie. And Oliver now believes it "disingenuous"
of me to "complain" about his flagrantly lying about me.

Josh


Josh Dougherty

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 9:02:59 PM11/23/02
to
"Nathan Folkert" <nfol...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:4b923300.02112...@posting.google.com...
> In the past few weeks, several posters have asserted that Kamm is a
> liar, a troll, a madman, and a prick, who is utterly irrelevant and
> who no one pays any attention to.
>
> These posters told us this in between lengthy, footnoted posts running
> into dozens of pages "exposing" some irrelevancy about Kamm's personal
> life or rhetoric, posts which required them to scour newsgroups and
> internet news archives, or read biographies of British politicians off
> of scans that a friend made (in spite of this scholarly dedication, at
> least one is remarkably reluctant to take thirty seconds to try typing
> "Martin Webster" and "Nazi" or "Kenyatta" into google, just to see if
> maybe Newton actually was getting some of his information on Israel
> from a violent, racist anti-Semite).

Also Nathan, in case this was unclear in my initial posting on this thread.
Oliver never said he was even talking about "Martin Webster" until the same
post in which he started constructing vicious lies about me by saying:

1] "You see nothing sinister in calling for support for Nazism."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:


2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

2] "Dougherty believes it's a smear to criticise Nazis. That's what he
says."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:


2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

3] "[Dougherty] believes a leader of a Nazi movement is a perfectly
reasonable man."
Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:


2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

4] "[Dougherty] has also demonstrated something we didn't know before: he


sees nothing sinister in Nazism."

Subject: Re: The Scholarly (Double) Standards of Oliver Kamm - Date:


2002-11-20 15:21:26 PST

Prior to making these statements he had never even said he was referring to
Martin Webster, only that Andy Newton had posted "pro-Nazi material".

So at that time I wouldn't have even had any opportunity to "try typing
"Martin Webster"...into google" before being attacked with the lies
reprinted above, even if it was actually my job to search for the supporting
evidence (if any) for Oliver's accusation, rather than his own job to
provide support for it.

Josh


Dan Clore

unread,
Nov 24, 2002, 12:16:36 AM11/24/02
to
Oliver Kamm wrote:
> "Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message
> news:gRUD9.6620$It3.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> In any case, I'm not going to follow you in removing
> > any and all context from such an "act", making all discussion of it "evil"
> > and "bizarre", and turning any such "act" or debate over it, no matter
> what
> > the context, into a totalitarian monolith of Orwellian "thought-crime".
>
> Indeed, I believe that posting material that defames Jews

Except for certain specific Jews, such as Noam Chomsky, of
course.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro

Lord Weÿrdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Nov 24, 2002, 4:26:00 AM11/24/02
to

"Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message
news:maWD9.6714$It3.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

Certainly is: you've demonstrated my case by explicitly admitting that you
won't condemn someone's promotion of Nazism. Case closed.


Oliver Kamm

unread,
Nov 24, 2002, 9:58:45 AM11/24/02
to
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3DE060B4...@columbia-center.org>...

> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > "Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message
> > news:gRUD9.6620$It3.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > In any case, I'm not going to follow you in removing
> > > any and all context from such an "act", making all discussion of it "evil"
> > > and "bizarre", and turning any such "act" or debate over it, no matter
> what
> > > the context, into a totalitarian monolith of Orwellian "thought-crime".
> >
> > Indeed, I believe that posting material that defames Jews
>
> Except for certain specific Jews, such as Noam Chomsky, of
> course.
>
None of us critics of Chomsky has ever attacked him for being a Jew.
We've attacked him for his totalitarian opinions and the dishonesty
with which he promotes them. That isn't defamatory, it's just
criticism of a kind that Clore plainly finds insufficiently genteel
for his delicate sensibilities.

Josh Dougherty

unread,
Nov 24, 2002, 12:07:19 PM11/24/02
to
"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3de09...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

Oliver, *you're* the only one here promoting those Nazi views, certainly
more than he ever did. Without you no one would have even noticed or looked
at it, not even Andy Newton!

The case is certainly closed. You are a pathetic liar.

Josh


iHĞ

unread,
Nov 24, 2002, 2:05:31 PM11/24/02
to
NOTE: I see that Andy has returned to the group, but I stand by the
following, the bulk of which I wrote yesterday afternoon. Apologies if
some of it no longer applies.

Welcome back btw Andy :-)


Yes--the case is closed against Google and you (if anyone).

Since I'm not blessed with the psychic powers of an Oliver Kamm and
don't know Andy beyond his utterances here, I too can only apply
Occam's razor to the situation.

One of the first things I must therefore look into is if Andy's
alleged behaviour in this instance is consistent with the rest of his
conduct: and I find that it is not. If he's been "calling for the
support of Nazism," as Kamm claims, he must have been doing it awfully
surreptitiously, perhaps rather sinisterly using white text on a white
background. Not possible? Then I would say he hasn't done anything
like it. His messages are available for us all to read, anyway: so
judge for yourselves.

(The relevant thread on google is:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3da9cbd7_1%40mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl122727240d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3da9cbd7_1%2540mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com

I'll just offer one example of his conversation here, partly because I
like the sentiment expressed in it and partly because it concerns the
matter of race. (I also feel that we probably shouldn't be discussing
Andy as much as this when he's away: AFAICT he hasn't participated in
usenet since Nov 8th, and as I vaguely recall him describing himself
as a net-addict, he could be on holiday.):

> That Palestinians and ethnic Jews are the same race or not is something
> I have seen evidence for and against. Personally, I would prefer it be
> true, as if it then became more widely known perhaps it would bend the
> racism of some on either side. But I dont think it *should* be important
> because there should not be racism in the first place. [1]

This doesn't sound like someone attempting to promote racism or
fascism to me: but maybe Kamm reads it differently.

We can also ask ourselves this: if Andy's real aim is to spread racist
doctrines, why is he wasting his time making arguments like the one
above? He may be just a sneaky undercover plant, but all that effort
(not to mention fearsome foresight) to be able to sneak in one fascist
link to this ng obscured in a bunch of others... when any idiot can
get hundreds out of a search engine in seconds? PUH-leaze!

The next thing you know, someone will be accusing Chomsky of working
tirelessly lo these many years just so he can sneak out a few crumbs
of comfort for mass murderers, Nazis... and what do you know? That's
what he's accused of--as Chomsky commented regarding one such accuser:

In Outlook, May, Cohn presents a fevered account of a second
existence that he has conjured up for me, in France, where I
pursue my secret life as a neo-Nazi, hoping that no one outside
of Paris will notice. [2]

Occam's razor leaves accusers like Cohn with an unenviable task, one
to which none has been able to rise: to provide an overwhelming (or
even significant) weight of evidence in support of their case that
Chomsky=Nazi (weasel words along the line of "I never said he was a
Nazi, only that he gave his *support* to a Nazi/Nazis" deserve our
whole-hearted contempt, given that the smear-tacticians *ignore* all
evidence of Chomsky's abhorrence of Nazis, as well as the tenuous--to
say the least--basis of their own claims).

Fortunately, given the synthetic hysteria manufactured by the likes of
Kamm, Andy too has provided ample evidence undermining his accusers'
fantasies. Of course he's in good company--Chomsky, of course, but
also other conscientious and not *remotely* Nazi-supporting
contributors to this ng.

So my first reading of the situation leads me to surmise, like Josh,
and on the evidence available, that Andy sought and obtained from a
search engine (how else would you do it?) a list of other websites
that contained the quotes he had originally obtained from al-awda.org,
his purpose being to show that they were not unique to that site. He
then pasted the list unaltered, and missed that Google had thrown up
one innocent-sounding website that is hideously racist and fascist.
Clearly, in Kammspeakery Google must now be forever condemned for
"making known to the public, proclaiming"--promulgating--Nazi
material, which in Kammspeak equals calling for its support [and see
note 3 below].

Andy did not notice this about the one link in question--he was
looking for quantity here, from the sound of him, which was indeed a
mistake--but Kamm certainly did: oh boy, did he ever notice! And did
he have to announce it to the whole ng as loudly as possible? He sure
did--after all, HE DISCOVERED THAT A NAZI WEBLINK HAD BEEN POSTED!!
And what's more, posted by someone who was confronting Kamm with *ten*
rather awkward and difficult-to-counter quotations that didn't suit
Kamm well at all, at all. (And has Kamm ever countered them? No.)

One thing's pretty much for certain: once the link was posted here no
one drew more attention to it than Kamm, in fact nobody here even
noticed the nature of the damn thing before he did and, if he had a
single sincere or genuinely caring bone in his online body, Kamm would
have quietly emailed Andy with his discovery, rebuked him if he felt
the urge to do so and given him fair warning not to do that sort of
thing again (how could that have hurt?). Had Andy been stroppy in
response, THEN Kamm could have let the fireworks off if he felt that
was the best way to deal with the matter. Had Andy reacted
considerately to Kamm's warning, Kamm would have literally saved the
day (well, insofar as any calamity had occurred) and could then have
returned to the issues being argued in the ng--as mentioned, there
*was* something else being discussed in that thread, but a certain
someone managed to distract from it with screams of Nazi! Nazi!

Now consider how useless and counter-productive this was: any
theoretical lurkers in the ng who were keen to find a new fascist link
would have been alerted to it by Kamm, and *only* by Kamm, since if
they could see--as Kamm could, and Andy couldn't--that a weblink
bearing the name "Martin Webster" must be referring to the British
fascist by that name then they would already be much better informed
about fascists than Andy, and certainly needed no pointers from *him*.
The more loudly Kamm denounced it, the more appealing (to this
theoretical ng fascist) the link would have become.

So Kamm, as usually happens to clamorous censors (that is, the most
self-righteous, self-promoting and hypocritical variety) did his cause
more harm than good, by "rescuing" a link from the obscurity which was
its best (I think we would all agree) fate.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Kamm was *seeking*
to promote the website as such: that's not it at all. Kamm just
didn't--and still doesn't--*care* about the website's malign influence
on this ng, for he himself recklessly amplified it. What he *was*
concerned with--and still is-- was smearing his opponent with the
label "Nazi".

And if you need evidence as to whether or not that is consistent with
*Kamm's* general behaviour on this ng, I again suggest readers explore
the archive, including Josh Dougherty's recent analysis of the
logic-free hop-skip-jump methods Kamm employs toward that
oh-so-convenient end.


NOTES:

[Kept brief partly in consideration of tender souls like Nathan
Folkert, but also because the above is largely conjecture.]

[1]
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3DABF1F9.C2E460C6%40xtra.co.nz&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl122727240d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3DABF1F9.C2E460C6%2540xtra.co.nz

[2] http://monkeyfist.com:8080/ChomskyArchive/essays/outlook_html

[3] Promulgate sounds like "promote", but means something else,
something arguably closer to what Kamm did with Andy's link,
if we consider that said link would have languished in
relative obscurity without Kamm's noisy proclamations.

promulgate v. to make known to the public, to proclaim

proclaim v. 1. to announce officially or publicly, to
declare.
2. to make known unmistakably as
being, "his accent proclaimed him a Scot"

Opinions on this may vary. <g>

iHĞ

unread,
Nov 24, 2002, 3:15:52 PM11/24/02
to
On 23 Nov 2002 11:15:25 -0800, nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan
Folkert) wrote:

>In the past few weeks, several posters have asserted that Kamm is a
>liar, a troll, a madman, and a prick, who is utterly irrelevant and
>who no one pays any attention to.

I have not asserted that he is a liar: I have conclusively
demonstrated it. He is indeed a troll, not least because he himslef
now admits that his statements cannot to be taken seriously. I do
recall stating that there appears to a be method in his madness (my
implication, which I hope was clear, being that his purpose is to
distract from the substantive issues when they go against him), but
that is not of course a way of stating that someone is mad, merely
that their actions appear so. I stand by that. If I've said anything
directly accusing him of insanity, then please state where--I honestly
can't recall it, but I admit that the thought has crossed my mind.

As for "prick"... I missed that too. You're not adopting Kamm's
technique of putting words in other people's mouths, are you? Or are
you just letting your rhetoric get the better of you again?

"The man is an arrogant prick and a megalomaniac, and
believes himself infallible."

Nathan Folkert on Chomsky.

>These posters told us this in between lengthy, footnoted posts running
>into dozens of pages "exposing" some irrelevancy about Kamm's personal
>life or rhetoric, posts which required them to scour newsgroups and
>internet news archives, or read biographies of British politicians off
>of scans that a friend made (in spite of this scholarly dedication, at
>least one is remarkably reluctant to take thirty seconds to try typing
>"Martin Webster" and "Nazi" or "Kenyatta" into google, just to see if
>maybe Newton actually was getting some of his information on Israel
>from a violent, racist anti-Semite).

Andy Newton said he had obtained his quotations from al-awda.org,
IIRC; the other sites where later listed as alternative sources, which
I'm assuming he discovered with the help of a search engine. Andy
simply doesn't strike me as a "promoter" of Nazism: if he is, he's
done a much poorer job of giving publicity to the site in question
than has Kamm, as I have discussed in an article just posted.

>At the same time, at least two posters have written fantasy scenarios
>involving the use of physical violence against Kamm for what he has
>said here, and I strongly suspect that one pseudonymous poster is an
>obsessive net-stalker who has been pursuing Kamm for months or years
>under one nickname or another.

Can you please point to these items and explain why you describe them
in such sinister terms. As I post under an alias myself, it would
also be helpful if you could simply state whether the "net-stalker"
you have in mind is supposed to be me. For your information, Kamm
first came to my notice around the time of my "The non-combatant's
challenge" post to this ng, which itself was only weeks (at most a few
months) after I began reading a.f.n-c regularly. In other words I'm
still a relative newbie here, and this is the only nickname I've used
in a.f.n-c.

>I've been accused here of obsession myself (by at least one of these
>posters, in fact), so I doubt that my advice will have much sway, but
>perhaps you guys could ponder it anyway:

What is your advice exactly? That exposing a liar who incessantly,
falsely and loudly accuses his opponents of lying is not worthwhile?
Kamm may be a new name to me, but the Google archives show that his
m.o. in this ng has remained intact since (AFAICT) 1998. Now that his
methods are turned against him (only fairly and with proper rigour)
you are suddenly filled with pity for the man -- but not his victims.

>If you believe that Kamm is an irrelevant troll, then rather than
>obsessively researching his personal life, scouring the internet for
>damaging material, or writing posts that depict the use of physical
>violence to silence him, perhaps you should try ignoring him.

*You* try ignoring him. In particular, try ignoring him when he's
mounting scurrilous attacks on you as a promoter of Nazism.

[Since you seem to shrink from the very sight of footnotes and
references, I provide none.]

Dan Clore

unread,
Nov 24, 2002, 8:52:02 PM11/24/02
to
Oliver Kamm wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3DE060B4...@columbia-center.org>...
> > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > > "Josh Dougherty" <j...@lynnpdesign.com> wrote in message
> > > news:gRUD9.6620$It3.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> > > In any case, I'm not going to follow you in removing
> > > > any and all context from such an "act", making all discussion of it "evil"
> > > > and "bizarre", and turning any such "act" or debate over it, no matter
> > what
> > > > the context, into a totalitarian monolith of Orwellian "thought-crime".
> > >
> > > Indeed, I believe that posting material that defames Jews
> >
> > Except for certain specific Jews, such as Noam Chomsky, of
> > course.
> >
> None of us critics of Chomsky has ever attacked him for being a Jew.

Really? So all the crap about him being a "self-loathing
Jew" has nothing to do with him being a Jew? But that
doesn't matter, really: no one cares on what grounds you
defame him; that you do so is what we care about.

> We've attacked him for his totalitarian opinions and the dishonesty
> with which he promotes them. That isn't defamatory, it's just
> criticism of a kind that Clore plainly finds insufficiently genteel
> for his delicate sensibilities.

You know it's false on both counts, and that's defamation by
any standard.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro

Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:

iHĞ

unread,
Nov 24, 2002, 9:50:29 PM11/24/02
to
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 17:52:02 -0800, Dan Clore
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:

>> We've attacked him for his totalitarian opinions and the dishonesty
>> with which he promotes them. That isn't defamatory, it's just
>> criticism of a kind that Clore plainly finds insufficiently genteel
>> for his delicate sensibilities.
>
>You know it's false on both counts, and that's defamation by
>any standard.

Kamm is hardly likely to recognize defamatory remarks about Chomsky
when he makes them, as he rarely makes any other sort.

Nathan Folkert

unread,
Nov 25, 2002, 1:08:22 AM11/25/02
to
iH <talk...@talk21.com> wrote in message news:<vp50uucckg6db3u2j...@4ax.com>...

> On 23 Nov 2002 11:15:25 -0800, nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan
> Folkert) wrote:

> > In the past few weeks, several posters have asserted that Kamm
> > is a liar, a troll, a madman, and a prick, who is utterly irrelevant
> > and who no one pays any attention to.

[snip]


> If I've said anything directly accusing him of insanity, then please
> state where--I honestly can't recall it, but I admit that the thought
> has crossed my mind.

Given that I didn't even mention your name in my post, which was a
response to Josh Dougherty, I'm not sure where you get the idea that
all of the above are meant to apply to you. I'm sorry if that was
unclear, but I'm speaking about several different posters saying
several different things, among them the above.



> As for "prick"... I missed that too. You're not adopting Kamm's
> technique of putting words in other people's mouths, are you?

I'm not putting any words in anyone's mouths. It seems that every
third post to Kamm complains of arrogance, condescension, abuse, or
rudeness. "Prick" means "A person regarded as highly unpleasant,
especially a male." I did not quote anyone as literally saying the
word "prick" (though I believe one of our British correspondents did
use the more or less equivalent term "wanker"), but rather used it to
summarize the general attitude of most of the posters towards Mr.
Kamm.

[snip]

> >At the same time, at least two posters have written fantasy scenarios
> >involving the use of physical violence against Kamm for what he has
> >said here, and I strongly suspect that one pseudonymous poster is an
> >obsessive net-stalker who has been pursuing Kamm for months or years
> >under one nickname or another.
>
> Can you please point to these items and explain why you describe them
> in such sinister terms.

Under normal circumstances, it would be shocking that someone would
demand why I would refer to scenarios of violence in response to free
speech in "sinister terms". Sadly, though, there's not much that
surprises me in these groups anymore.

(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=eee564bd.0211051131.4200dff9%40posting.google.com)
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=arkr2a%24jm1vd%241%40ID-21003.news.dfncis.de)

> As I post under an alias myself, it would also be helpful if you could
> simply state whether the "net-stalker" you have in mind is supposed
> to be me.

Nope, not you. I was actually thinking of the poster "Mierda". Of
course, this is only a suspicion, based on statements s/h/it made, and
possible similarities to other pseudonymous posters from the distant
and not-so-distant past. I started to question Mierda on this point,
but it seems this poster has disappeared.

[snip]

> >I've been accused here of obsession myself (by at least one of these
> >posters, in fact), so I doubt that my advice will have much sway, but
> >perhaps you guys could ponder it anyway:
>

> What is your advice exactly? [... snip]

I can only repeat:


> >If you believe that Kamm is an irrelevant troll, then rather than
> >obsessively researching his personal life, scouring the internet for
> >damaging material, or writing posts that depict the use of physical
> >violence to silence him, perhaps you should try ignoring him.

If you do not believe him to be an irrelevant troll, then by all means
research and criticize away.

> *You* try ignoring him. In particular, try ignoring him when he's
> mounting scurrilous attacks on you as a promoter of Nazism.

There is a poster who goes by the name john smith who routinely
accuses me of horrendous evil. I generally ignore him. It's really
not that hard, since I truly believe that I am not horrendously evil,
and I also truly believe that john smith, at least as far as his posts
directed at me are concerned, is an irrelevant troll.

> [Since you seem to shrink from the very sight of footnotes and
> references, I provide none.]

I have nothing against footnotes[1] or references. I would offer you
one value-neutral suggestion, however. When citing google posts, the
only part of the query (the stuff after the "?" in the URL) that's
important is the field that says "selm=..." up to but not including
the next ampersand. If the link doesn't contain this, then click
"View this article only". All the rest can be deleted, turning a four
line citation into one that fits in one line or slightly more.

Enough fun for now.

- Nate

[1] though I think parentheticals are more appropriate for a Usenet
post.

Jeffrey Ketland

unread,
Nov 25, 2002, 9:15:09 AM11/25/02
to
Nathan Folkert wrote in message
<4b923300.02112...@posting.google.com>...

Although I've pledged not to engage anymore with either him or debates about
him, I think it was me who call the nutter a "wanker", maybe last August-ish
(??). Indeed, after being subjected to the usual slander and abuse.

>> As I post under an alias myself, it would also be helpful if you could
>> simply state whether the "net-stalker" you have in mind is supposed
>> to be me.
>
>Nope, not you. I was actually thinking of the poster "Mierda". Of
>course, this is only a suspicion, based on statements s/h/it made, and
>possible similarities to other pseudonymous posters from the distant
>and not-so-distant past. I started to question Mierda on this point,
>but it seems this poster has disappeared.

One such "pseudonymous poster" had the name "Criminy Jicket", who posted
here last January/February. About 3 or 4 weeks ago, Kamm expressed the
grossly paranoid and stupid insinuation that that poster (whoever they are)
was related to me (in fact, amid about 78 other grossly paranoid claims and
insinuations). It took me a while to figure this out and in any case, it was
a ridiculous allegation and one that I could prove false quite easily, by
referring to the dates/times of "Jicket" 's posts and my talking schedule in
Wales (Lampeter) last January (more exactly, a talk I gave on
"Exemplification and Structure" on 23 January, when I stayed in a tiny
guesthouse in Lampeter for two days). Of course, no one should be subjected
to such ridiculous, offensive and false allegations in the first place.
Kamm's final abuse at me (at least that I saw, before I plonked him)
concerned my haircut and my weight. Ludicrous.

[snip]

--- Jeff

Nathan Folkert

unread,
Nov 25, 2002, 9:19:40 PM11/25/02
to
"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<artb8u$6bp$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> Nathan Folkert wrote in message
> <4b923300.02112...@posting.google.com>...

[snip]

> Although I've pledged not to engage anymore with either him or debates about
> him, I think it was me who call the nutter a "wanker", maybe last August-ish
> (??). Indeed, after being subjected to the usual slander and abuse.

I had actually not been thinking of you at the time, since I
misremembered Mierda as having called Kamm a "wanker", when in fact he
just wrote to say that he hoped Kamm had lost his "investment wanking"
job (note the terribly clever pun; it's hard to miss). But yes, you
did call him a wanker last August. My apologies for the confusion.
(Ironically, this error could have been avoided if I'd only taken the
time to make footnote references for my post!)

[snip]



> One such "pseudonymous poster" had the name "Criminy Jicket", who posted
> here last January/February. About 3 or 4 weeks ago, Kamm expressed the
> grossly paranoid and stupid insinuation that that poster (whoever they are)
> was related to me (in fact, amid about 78 other grossly paranoid claims and
> insinuations).

To be quite honest, I also had assumed that you and Criminy Jicket
were the same person, since Jicket had claimed he taught logic, among
other things, and seemed interested in philosophy. Given the rather
remote likelihood that two British logic (etc.) teachers with a keen
interest in Pinochet and Kissinger would be posting obsessive rants
about Kamm with titles like "Kammikazi" (you) and "Kamm Sham"
(Jicket), I don't think it was "grossly paranoid" or "stupid" to make
this assumption. Since then, however, you have stated that you never
posted under this or any other pseudonym, so apparently it is false,
even if it is IMHO not terribly unreasonable.

But, yes, Criminy Jicket was, in fact, one of the pseudonymous posters
that I suspected might be the same person as Mierda. But, again, this
is only a guess. The clues given -- such as the hotmail accounts, the
apparent Britishness, the hatred for investment bankers, the obsession
with and knowledge of Kamm, the childish thread spawned solely to
reveal some irrelevant fact about Kamm dug up from sources external to
the newsgroup, and, of course, Mierda's apparent familiarity with the
group -- these could all just be coincidentally shared by two
unrelated posters, in the same way that you and Jicket apparently
coincidentally share teaching positions in logic, an interest in
philosophy and Pinochet, and a gift for Kamm-puns.

> It took me a while to figure this out and in any case, it was a ridiculous
> allegation and one that I could prove false quite easily, by referring to
> the dates/times of "Jicket" 's posts and my talking schedule in Wales
> (Lampeter) last January (more exactly, a talk I gave on
> "Exemplification and Structure" on 23 January, when I stayed in a tiny
> guesthouse in Lampeter for two days).

I am sure that Kamm will be blushing furiously in his shame at having
"offensively" and "ridiculously" assumed that you and Jicket were the
same person, now that you have provided irrefutable proof that it is
impossible to access the internet from Wales. :)

> Of course, no one should be subjected
> to such ridiculous, offensive and false allegations in the first place.

I agree with you that the allegations were ridiculous. It is
ridiculous to assume that someone who made his debut in this newsgroup
by calling Werner Cohn "Venereal Cone" would be so concerned with his
personal dignity that he would make anonymous attacks from the cover
of a throw-away account. I assume this "Criminy Jicket" person is
someone with enough self-respect to hesitate before posting such
immature tripe without some kind of disguise. ;p

[snip]

Now I will take your advice to yourself and withdraw from this thread
and, for a time, at least, this newsgroup. I have other things that
need to get done.

- Nate

Oliver Kamm

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 6:25:28 AM11/26/02
to
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.02112...@posting.google.com>...

This is a very funny post. I must presume that Ketland has competence
to teach his subject, because he certainly doesn't give evidence here
of competence in the construction of reasoned arguments.

iHĞ

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 3:04:01 PM11/27/02
to
On 24 Nov 2002 22:08:22 -0800, nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan
Folkert) wrote:

[total snip]

Nathan said some things in that snippage that certainly warrant a
riposte from me, but as he has just announced in another post that
he'll be away for a while, I'll leave these for his return (that's
assuming we haven't both lost interest by then). Unlike someone,
whose name I need hardly mention, I do not believe in lambasting
contributors who are absent and cannot defend themselves. However I
do think it's perfectly acceptable to speak well of one's
"interlocutors" even when they are away.

So Nathan if you do chance upon this post before you return to
participating in the ng, I'd just like to say a hearty thanks for the
advice below. Those Google links always struck me as monstrously
long, and it's great to know they can be cut down to manageable size.

>I have nothing against footnotes[1] or references. I would offer you
>one value-neutral suggestion, however. When citing google posts, the
>only part of the query (the stuff after the "?" in the URL) that's
>important is the field that says "selm=..." up to but not including
>the next ampersand. If the link doesn't contain this, then click
>"View this article only". All the rest can be deleted, turning a four
>line citation into one that fits in one line or slightly more.
>
>Enough fun for now.
>
>- Nate
>
>[1] though I think parentheticals are more appropriate for a Usenet
>post.

Yeah I'm still considering this one. Maybe a bit of both--*notes* in
parentheses within the body of the text, but references backing up
those notes at the tail-end of the post?

Nathan Folkert

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 4:56:17 AM11/29/02
to
iH <talk...@talk21.com> wrote in message news:<2q8auu4imr6bggdo1...@4ax.com>...

> On 24 Nov 2002 22:08:22 -0800, nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan
> Folkert) wrote:
>
> [total snip]
>
> Nathan said some things in that snippage that certainly warrant a
> riposte from me, but as he has just announced in another post that
> he'll be away for a while, I'll leave these for his return (that's
> assuming we haven't both lost interest by then). Unlike someone,
> whose name I need hardly mention, I do not believe in lambasting
> contributors who are absent and cannot defend themselves.

Please, don't wait on my account. Reading takes very little time,
it's posting that's a bitch, so I usually can keep up except when I'm
extremely busy. Posts sit in google forever, anyway, so it's not like
you'd be stabbing me in the back. And, luckily, I have a 4 day
weekend (maybe).

[snip]

> So Nathan if you do chance upon this post before you return to
> participating in the ng, I'd just like to say a hearty thanks for the
> advice below.

Not at all, though I must admit that the credit should go to James
Donald who revealed this trick in alt.society.anarchy earlier this
year. There's other useful stuff you can do with google URLs, but
most of it is more useful for searching and bookmarking rather than
for citing.

[snip]

> >[1] though I think parentheticals are more appropriate for a Usenet
> >post.
>
> Yeah I'm still considering this one. Maybe a bit of both--*notes* in
> parentheses within the body of the text, but references backing up
> those notes at the tail-end of the post?

Perhaps. Given the medium, however, most references can be made in
line with a hyperlink (especially now that you know how to shorten
google links!), and I think this is vastly preferable. If you have a
long aside, perhaps, it can wait until the end of the post, but my
attention span is not long enough to flip between the bottom of the
post and where I'm reading just for information that I can pop up in a
separate window anyway. :)

That's just my opinion, anyway. Use whatever style you want.

- Nate

0 new messages