Not an anti-Semite, he just dislikes Jews
Andrew A. Skolnick
David Michael, a.k.a. Cuddles and Lord Haw-Haw, vehemently
denies that he is a Nazi. He vehemently denies that he is an
anti-Semite.
However, his own writings show that he is a shameless liar,
as well as a Neo-Nazi and anti-Semite.
In one of his screeds frequently quoted on these newsgroups,
he describes Hitler's plan for world domination as a
"beautiful dream" that "is worth fighting and dying for."
But he blames Hitler for losing "the most important war of
all time."
But he's not a Nazi, he insists.
In another diatribe regarding the IMT at Nuremberg that he
posted on June 25, 1998, David Michael describes the Nazis
as his "side" and Great Britain, the United States, and the
other allies as the other "side" in World War II:
"I just have. The answer is that Article 1 ensures
that our side got tried by your side and your side
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
got off without being brought to book. In short
Streicher was tried because he was a German and an
easy target. Harris was not tried because there was
no justice at Nuremburg. You were not interested in
justice. You were not even interested in the law.
You wanted the blood of innocent men.
-- http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=365835009
But he's not a Nazi, he insists.
He posted a similar admission on June 24, 1998, regarding
the Holocaust and other war crimes:
"Well, if you wish to try to ease your conscience by
calling your side's atrocities 'acts of war' and our
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
side's alleged atrocities 'murder' I wish you good
^^^^^^
luck! But I will then have to press you to tell me
what precisely constitutes an 'act of war' and why
Hamburg and Dresden and Nagasaki and Hiroshima
constitute such acts whereas Auschwitz does not."
-- http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=365495289
But David Michael is not a Nazi, he insists. Auschwitz was
not genocide, but a justifiable act of war. All those Jews
and their little nits were enemies. And "enemies" he said,
have to be killed before they get a chance to kill you.
Who else were the enemies of "his side" who needed killing?
Our parents and grandparents in the United States, Great
Britain, Canada, France, Australia, and all the other allied
countries. Unfortunately, he says, Hitler failed to crush
his enemies. He blames his Fuehrer for "losing the most
important war of all time."
Here are some more of David Michael's statements
demonstrating his devotion to Hitler and that madman's
"beautiful dream":
"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in
so doing they have my complete support."
And Michael says he is no anti-Semite. He just despises
Jews:
"I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to
strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
And of course, David Michael insists that he is not a liar.
We're just misconstruing his words.
-- Andrew Skolnick
David E Michael
> David Michael, a.k.a. Cuddles and Lord Haw-Haw, vehemently
> denies that he is a Nazi. He vehemently denies that he is
> an anti-Semite.
>
> However, his own writings show that he is a shameless liar,
> as well as a Neo-Nazi and anti-Semite.
>
> In one of his screeds frequently quoted on these newsgroups,
> he describes Hitler's plan for world domination as a
> "beautiful dream" that "is worth fighting and dying for."
False.
>
> And he blames Hitler's military incompetence for losing "the
> most important war of all time."
>
Anyone who thinks that Hitler was not incompetent, or that World War II
was not the most important war of all time is surely misinformed.
>
> But he's not a Nazi, he insists.
>
Indeed.
>
> In another diatribe regarding the Nuremberg trials that he
> posted on June 25, 1998, David Michael identifies the Nazis
> as his "side" and Great Britain, the United States, and the
> other allies as the other "side" in World War II:
>
False. 'My side' was those who advocated a Churchill--Hitler alliance
against Stalin rather than a Churchill--Stalin alliance against Hitler.
>
> "I just have. The answer is that Article 1 ensures
> that our side got tried by your side and your side
> ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> got off without being brought to book. In short
> Streicher was tried because he was a German and an
> easy target. Harris was not tried because there was
> no justice at Nuremburg. You were not interested in
> justice. You were not even interested in the law.
> You wanted the blood of innocent men.
>
> -- http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=365835009
>
> But he's not a Nazi, he insists.
>
Sure. The Nuremberg trials were to try one side only -- the losers. Why
weren't those who perpetrated the terror bombings of Dresden and
Hamburg, for instance, ever bought to book? My side is the innocent
people of Germany who were murdered by rabid lunatics like you.
>
> He posted a similar admission on June 24, 1998, regarding
> the Holocaust and other war crimes:
>
> "Well, if you wish to try to ease your conscience by
> calling your side's atrocities 'acts of war' and our
> ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> side's alleged atrocities 'murder' I wish you good
> ^^^^^^
> luck! But I will then have to press you to tell me
> what precisely constitutes an 'act of war' and why
> Hamburg and Dresden and Nagasaki and Hiroshima
> constitute such acts whereas Auschwitz does not."
>
> -- http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=365495289
>
> But David Michael is not a Nazi, he insists. Auschwitz was
> not genocide. Just a justifiable act of war.
And where did I say that? Answer: I didn't. Andrew A. Skolnick: the
journalist who invents his stories.
> All those Jews
> and their little nits were enemies. And an "enemy" he said,
> is an "it" which has be killed before "it" gets a chance to
> kill you.
>
> Who else were the enemies of "his side" who needed killing?
> Who were these "its?" Our parents and grandparents in the
> United States, Great Britain, Canada, France, Australia,
> and all the other allied countries. Unfortunately, he says,
> Hitler failed to crush his enemies.
And where did I say that? Answer: I didn't. Mr Skolnick made it up.
Andrew Skolnick is a journalist who has to invent his stories because he
doesn't have the talent to research them.
> He blames his Fuehrer
> for "losing the most important war of all time."
>
> Here are some more of David Michael's statements
> demonstrating his devotion to Hitler and that madman's
> "beautiful dream":
>
> "the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
> appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
> shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in
> so doing they have my complete support."
>
In the 1930s there was a state of undeclared war between the communists
and the non-communist world. In the Soviet Union, Stalin was
slaughtering millions. In a state of war you kill the enemy before the
enemy kills you.
>
> And Michael says he is no anti-Semite.
True.
> He just despises
> Jews:
>
Nope. I just keep getting let down by them.
>
> "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
> Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to
> strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
> arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
>
A point that is exemplified by Mr Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> And of course, David Michael insists that he is not a liar.
Indeed.
>
> We're just misconstruing his words.
>
Nope. Mr Skolnick, the journalist who can't do his research, is just
inventing stories again.
>
> -- Andrew Skolnick
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3853BE94...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Sun, 12
Dec 1999 15:26:12 +0000, David E Michael
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
[snip]
>> "I just have. The answer is that Article 1 ensures
>> that our side got tried by your side and your side
>> ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> got off without being brought to book. In short
>> Streicher was tried because he was a German and an
>> easy target. Harris was not tried because there was
>> no justice at Nuremburg. You were not interested in
>> justice. You were not even interested in the law.
>> You wanted the blood of innocent men.
>>
>> -- http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=365835009
>> But he's not a Nazi, he insists.
>Sure. The Nuremberg trials were to try one side only -- the losers.
>Why weren't those who perpetrated the terror bombings of Dresden and
>Hamburg, for instance, ever bought to book? My side is the innocent
>people of Germany who were murdered by rabid lunatics like you.
But that's not what you said. You said that your side was tried at
Nuremberg. The Nazi leadership was on trial at Nuremberg. Why
should anyone not think that your side was the Nazi leadership? You
said that at Nuremberg "our side" wanted the blood of innocent men.
Why should anyone not think that you deny the crimes of the Nazi
leadership?
Even with your own plain words in front of your face, you lie about
them. Why should anyone not think that you are a liar?
[snip]
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOFQNuZQgvG272fn9EQIXXQCfYqLjItX+CThikMcBXONJM7D5VdkAn2SN
mpCHZhWc+G48gk6WgmsEsZCq
=igrA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andrew A. Skolnick
By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
been exposed over and over again as a liar.
-- Andrew Skolnick
Mixmaster
On 12-Dec-1999, "Andrew A. Skolnick" <asko...@stopNazi.spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> David Michael, a.k.a. Cuddles and Lord Haw-Haw, vehemently
> denies that he is a Nazi. He vehemently denies that he is an
> anti-Semite.
David should hunt you down and beat
the holy dog shit out of you kike.
Heinrich Himmler
David E Michael
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead he has
to make up lies. How odd!
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <38545445...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 13
Dec 1999 02:04:53 +0000, David E Michael
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
>> John Morris wrote:
>> > >Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> > >> -- http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=365835009
>> > [snip]
>> By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
>> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
>> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
>And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead
>he has to make up lies. How odd!
Even with your own plain words in front of your face, you lie about
them. Why should anyone not think that you are a liar?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOFR2sZQgvG272fn9EQJQ0gCgzhdD4+DNHR4X1s74WKnxx8yDHaYAoLgF
6QrGe7NmG5NwHlGU5AKhe0pp
=n40Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David E Michael
John Morris wrote:
Because anyone who reads what I am saying will see who the liars are.
>
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOFR2sZQgvG272fn9EQJQ0gCgzhdD4+DNHR4X1s74WKnxx8yDHaYAoLgF
> 6QrGe7NmG5NwHlGU5AKhe0pp
> =n40Y
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David
tim gueguen
Mixmaster <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in message
news:8321s4$r...@sirius.infonex.com...
just figure out why he and his buddies bother with the Holocaust denial
stuff. You'd think they'd be damn happy that 6 million Jews were murdered
in WW2.
tim gueguen 101867
grandwazoo
There seems to be a nazi hang-up about cocksuckin, as the subject appears
constantly as subject of their post. The perverse worship of a nazi dictator
has a sexual connotation. Such may be rooted in an unfulfilled sexual desire
to go down on their knees in submission to their aryan role model. The
position of the arm in a nazi salute, particularly demonstrated by Adolf's
theatrical poses, must inspire a sexual message. As a mater of satire, the
nazi uniform has often become the cliché for sadistic/masochistic fetishes.
The hate monger's have demonstrated the consistent desire to be humiliated in
this NG, which also seems related to S/M fetishes. Even the pretence of
Holocaust revisionism has completely vanished, and sexual and homosexual
insult remains in place argument. Mixmaster seems particularly obsessed by
penises. In his fantasy, the nazi is in a dominant position, which suggest
some real issues with the dimension or functionality of his own personal unit.
If the unit does not work correctly, it may be due to a lack of spine, as the
spine connects the unit to the brain. The desire for submission to a
dictator, would be an indicator for lack of spine. However, brain damage
cannot be ruled out as a cause.
--
Sara Salzman
<mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>On 12-Dec-1999, "Andrew A. Skolnick"
<asko...@stopNazi.spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> David Michael, a.k.a. Cuddles and Lord Haw-Haw, vehemently
>> denies that he is a Nazi. He vehemently denies that he is an
>> anti-Semite.
>
>David should hunt you down and beat
>the holy dog shit out of you kike.
>
> Heinrich Himmler
OOOH, here's a good one for the Court, Yale! ADVOCATING VIOLENCE!
Oh, Doc... please up your medication so you'll be at least mildly
comprehensible to the judge.
Sara
--
"I am an agitator, and an agitator is the center
post in a washing machine that gets the dirt out."
Jim Hightower
Orac
cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>In article <8321s4$r...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mixmaster
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12-Dec-1999, "Andrew A. Skolnick"
><asko...@stopNazi.spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Michael, a.k.a. Cuddles and Lord Haw-Haw, vehemently
>>> denies that he is a Nazi. He vehemently denies that he is an
>>> anti-Semite.
>>
>>David should hunt you down and beat
>>the holy dog shit out of you kike.
>>
>> Heinrich Himmler
>
>
>OOOH, here's a good one for the Court, Yale! ADVOCATING VIOLENCE!
>
>Oh, Doc... please up your medication so you'll be at least mildly
>comprehensible to the judge.
With each new post, Tavish buries himself deeper and deeper.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
a.k.a. |
David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
Avital Pilpel
> > Even with your own plain words in front of your face, you lie about
> > them. Why should anyone not think that you are a liar?
> >
>
> Because anyone who reads what I am saying will see who the liars are.
Indeed so, David, but not the way you think...
Avital Pilpel
Yale F. Edeiken
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:38548A22...@btinternet.com...
> > >> > Even with your own plain words in front of your face, you lie
> > >> > about them. Why should anyone not think that you are a liar?
> >
> > >> > [snip]
> >
> > >> By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
> > >> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > >> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> >
> > >And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead
> > >he has to make up lies. How odd!
> >
> > Even with your own plain words in front of your face, you lie about
> > them. Why should anyone not think that you are a liar?
> >
>
> Because anyone who reads what I am saying will see who the liars are.
Indeed, they will instantly -- as others have frequently stated -- is
that Lord Haw Haw is a liar.
Here's some proof: of a typical set of lies from Lord Haw Haw
> And now for the true version.
With is replete with lies as can be expected from Lord Haw Haw.
> 1. Ken McVay challenged Mat Giwer to have the tape of the Himmler Posen
> speech analysed. If found to be genuine, Giwer to pay costs of analysis.
If
> found to be not genuine, Nizkor to pay costs of analysis.
True.
> 2. I expressed an interest in having the tapes analysed. McVay appointed
> Edeiken to represent him.
Not quite true. Lord Haw Haw legally accepted the challenge - apparently
without
reading it.
It should also be noted that I was retained to negotiate the contract as
part of the original
challenge.
> 3. Edeiken drew up draft contract (see Nizkor site).
Correct.
> 4. I sent him some observations on the draft contract (see Nizkor site).
A whopper here from Lord Haw Haw. He asked for the delay of over a month
so he
could consult a lawyer. In fact, that request was fraudulent as he never
consulted an attorney.
Further he objected to every clause of the contract including boilerplate
and a clause put in to
protect HIS interests. He further demanded that the contract be rewritten to
state that his expert
be the person performing the tests. In a display of utter bad faith he
misrepresented the
credentials of the expert he had chosen.
> 5. He sent me some observations on my observations (see Nizkor site).
False. I replied by informing Lord Haw Haw of the amendments to which my
client
agreed and informed him of of the legal absurdities he was proposing.
> 6. I responded indicating what I saw as the areas of agreement, areas that
> I'd need to refer to my lawyers and areas where there was currently no
> agreement. I suggested areas of compromise on the areas where there was
> currently no agreement.
False. Lord Haw Haw then raised new objections most of which were legal
nonsense.
Nor did he negotiate in good faith. As an example, Lord Haw Haw made the
request that he
approve all cost over-runs. My clinet agreed and it was proposed to that it
be expressed in the
contract as a percentage of the estimated cost. Lord Haw Haw was asked to
name a figure that
was acceptable to him as the thresh-hold for his approval. He refused to do
so.
> 7. Edeiken responded, rejecting most of my suggested areas of compromise.
A total lie. No "observations" were made. I refused to negotiate legal
matters with Lord
Haw Haw, based on his failure to understand the basics of contract law (one
of his demands was
the the contract be made binding on persons who were not parties to the
contract) and advised
him to seek the advice of counsel. Lord Haw Haw refused.
Lord Haw Haw was also informed that no further drafts of a contract would
be preseted
to him until there was a final agreement from him and his counsel. Lord Haw
Haw replied "I
agree with this modus operandi."
> 8. I invited Edeiken to draw up another contract giving solutions to the
> outstanding areas of difficulty that would be acceptable to both parties.
I
> undertook to refer such a contract to my lawyers for fine tuning.
False. First Lord Haw Haw had already agreed that this was not the proper
procedure.
Second, both I and my client were content with the proposal on the table.
There were no
"outstanding areas of disagreement" due to anything other than the failure
of Lord Haw Haw to
seek legal advice.
> 9. Edeiken refused to provide such contract. He further announced, in an
> unguarded moment, that he 'would have boobed' if I signed a contract with
> Nizkor. In the light of this intransigence I announced that I would not
> continue unless McVay appointed another lawyer.
A series of lies and misrepresentations from Lord Haw Haw.
First, I already had an agreement from him that no further draft would be
sought.
Second, I refused to act as his counsel and informed him that he was to
propose any
alternate language he wished to include. He failed to do so.
Third, I objected to his failure to provide material requested. This
included provision of
an expert report which he had quoted excerpts from and asked me to accept.
His repsonse to this
reasonable request was "Hard cheddar." Further, after his mendacious
statement that no such
requests had been made, I demanded a mailing address where future
communications could be
sent by registered mail. He refused to provide such address.
Fourth, his claim about my statement is a lie as has been repeatedly shown.
The only truth in Lord Haw Haw's statement is that on May 21, 1999, Lord
Haw Haw
ended the negotiations by stating "I will not proceed further with this
matter . . ."
> 10. McVay did not appoint another lawyer.
Tough cheddar.
> 11. I indicated that if Edeiken would provide the requested contract, I
> would proceed and refer it to my lawyers.
A lie. The last statement to me of my client was on May 21, 1999 when he
ended the
negotiations by stating "I will not proceed further with this matter . . .
That statement has never
been withdrawn.
> 12. Edeiken refused to do so.
For the reasons stated above. Not only would I have been acting as his
counsel while
doing so, I had no place to send him any such redraft.
> 13. I threw the challenge open to anyone else who was interested in taking
> it up, given that Edeiken was clearly not going to proceed with the
matter.
False. It was Lord Haw Haw who withdrew from the negotiations.
> 14. The current status is that I am prepared to negotiate a contract to
have
> the tapes analysed either with McVay, Edeiken, or anyone else.
False. The current status is that Lord Haw Haw had withdrawn from all
negotiations by
stating "I will not proceed further with this matter . . . ." This has
never been retracted.
In short, since his pattern of conduct overwhelmingly demonstrates bad
faith, he has
nothing left in his quiver except spamming various newgroups with his lies.
He made fourteen statements above and 12 were serious misrepresentations.
Watch how he runs from any meaningful answer to the facts just as he runs
from his own
words.
The simple truth is that his mouth wrote a check his body could not cash
and now he is
wiggling like mad to escape the results of his idiocy.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
steve wolk
>
> On 12-Dec-1999, "Andrew A. Skolnick" <asko...@stopNazi.spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > David Michael, a.k.a. Cuddles and Lord Haw-Haw, vehemently
> > denies that he is a Nazi. He vehemently denies that he is an
> > anti-Semite.
>
> David should hunt you down and beat
> the holy dog shit out of you kike.
>
> Heinrich Himmler
And decent people should hunt you down and put you on display at the zoo
with the rest of the snakes.
Steve
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
> Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
>
> > John Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > - --
> > > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> >
> > By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
> > David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> >
> > -- Andrew Skolnick
>
> And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead he has
> to make up lies. How odd!
>
> David
>
That's rich, David. In a post that contains an example of *your*
words (I notice that you don't deny that they are yours) and a
discussion of that example you claim that he hasn't produced any
examples.
Could there be a clearer example of the 'big lie' technique in
action? Repeate a falsehood enough and people will believe it even
when that assertion is made directly into the face of its contradition!
Unfortunately for you, the big lie technique isn't going to work in
sci.skeptic. It doesn't work in alt.revisionism right now.
William
PS. When are you going to answer Gord on the Himmler Challenge? It's
been more than 24 hours and you have yet to answer. Gord gave you at
least 2 hours more than you gave Ken McVay before you started in on
heckling him.
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFXfYSKcKc3OYUhpAQFSfwQAqTRQ4IW8A8rylbx4O0ocd6oLNqNzIM4w
ADVYk97/ot4fyue0NzAM2HWwRsnlbXyN0+40i+fwhhvTSeALmhXJO+IZ2SLlRQ91
CfCxZ+5JBLpgFDVhTLPlhdZjk/h2z6g3yIceVdfpZU66gnZ+NNw0uF/L7vkbymvK
xTx0WedpNFE=
=1/Lg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In <38545445...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 13
> > Dec 1999 02:04:53 +0000, David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> >
> > >> By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
> > >> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > >> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> >
> > >And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead
> > >he has to make up lies. How odd!
> >
> > Even with your own plain words in front of your face, you lie about
> > them. Why should anyone not think that you are a liar?
> >
>
> Because anyone who reads what I am saying will see who the liars are.
>
David, you couldn't be more right.
(snip)
> David
>
William
PS. Gord awaits, David. Why haven't you answered him?
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFXfyCKcKc3OYUhpAQFHPQQAk/k1+laEr1iVqu+grN5LXaT7zVjwNAVu
NHLNDxdZcKhguamMqAlNzbf04u3Kx4dzFbxM4rlupAc683mE1y7ljZJJl+YaIKHT
hY8f+md/tr2FtUBo76/nzrI2yO0a8XqENYu1aeNKXYNZ7Iut4yjVxous0uH56718
+LyWdOrRuA0=
=X1N+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Yale F. Edeiken
William Daffer <whda...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:m3d7sa2...@lsajca1-ar3-108-173.dsl.gtei.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> >
> > > John Morris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > John Morris
<John....@UAlberta.CA>
> > >
> > > David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > > been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> > >
> >
> > And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead he
has
> > to make up lies. How odd!
> >
> >
>
> That's rich, David. In a post that contains an example of *your*
> words (I notice that you don't deny that they are yours) and a
> discussion of that example you claim that he hasn't produced any
> examples.
>
> Could there be a clearer example of the 'big lie' technique in
> action? Repeate a falsehood enough and people will believe it even
> when that assertion is made directly into the face of its contradition!
>
> Unfortunately for you, the big lie technique isn't going to work in
> sci.skeptic. It doesn't work in alt.revisionism right now.
>
> William
>
>
> PS. When are you going to answer Gord on the Himmler Challenge? It's
> been more than 24 hours and you have yet to answer. Gord gave you at
> least 2 hours more than you gave Ken McVay before you started in on
> heckling him.
Not only that it is over a week since John Morris defied Lord Haw Haw to
sue him.
Still no lawsuit filed.
I understand that the coat of arms of the Haw Haw family is sable, or
the posterior of a naken man running.
Derek Bell
: In article <catamont-131...@ts007d37.den-co.concentric.net>,
: cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
:>OOOH, here's a good one for the Court, Yale! ADVOCATING VIOLENCE!
Incredible, Sara - are these neo-Nazis getting thicker or what?
:>Oh, Doc... please up your medication so you'll be at least mildly
:>comprehensible to the judge.
Is it possible that he'll ever be even slightly comprehensible?
: With each new post, Tavish buries himself deeper and deeper.
Mind you, Tavish started off buried fairly deep.
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
Derek Bell
: And decent people should hunt you down and put you on display at the zoo
: with the rest of the snakes.
The venomous ones that is - Tavish just produces large amounts of
the stuff.
steve wolk
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
> > John Morris wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > >> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > > >> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> > >
> > > >he has to make up lies. How odd!
> > >
> > > them. Why should anyone not think that you are a liar?
> > >
> >
> >
>
> David, you couldn't be more right.
>
> (snip)
>
> > David
> >
>
> William
>
> PS. Gord awaits, David. Why haven't you answered him?
Back in the spring, I challenged Mr. Michael to take a one question
polygraph exam, which I would pay for. The question was whether he was
an anti-semite, which he claims not to be. Mr. Michael never responded.
So why should you be surprised that he hasn't accepted Mr. Morris's
challenge and has fled from the Himmler challenge?
Steve
Orac
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
>> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
>> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
>>
>> -- Andrew Skolnick
>
>And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead he has
>to make up lies. How odd!
You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side"
being tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words. You don't
appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted the "blood
of innocent men" at Nuremberg. That quote alone is an excellent example
that demonstrates where your sympathies lie with regards to the
combatants in WWII, and it wasn't with the Allies.
Tim Stevens
news:38570C1F...@btinternet.com...
>
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > William Daffer wrote:
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >
> > > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > John Morris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > >
> > > > > In <38545445...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon,
13
> > > > > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> John Morris wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > In <3853BE94...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on
> > > > > >> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > > > > >> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> > > > >
Instead
> > > > > >he has to make up lies. How odd!
> > > > >
Now Cuddles hems and haws for six weeks before suddenly remembering a
previous appointment.
Tim Stevens
[snip]
>
> > That quote alone is an excellent example
> > that demonstrates where your sympathies lie with regards to the
> > combatants in WWII, and it wasn't with the Allies.
> >
>
> I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with Stalin
and
> with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
Yes, we know that, Mr. 'Ignore the corpses for a moment' Michael.
--
Tim
********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
David E Michael
Orac wrote:
> In article <38545445...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
> >> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> >> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> >>
> >> -- Andrew Skolnick
> >
> >And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead he has
> >to make up lies. How odd!
>
> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side"
> being tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the lesser of
the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom could
be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of lives
and led to a better world.
> You don't
> appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted the "blood
> of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
Do you deny it?
> That quote alone is an excellent example
> that demonstrates where your sympathies lie with regards to the
> combatants in WWII, and it wasn't with the Allies.
>
I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with Stalin and
with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
>
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
> a.k.a. |
> David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
> | inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
David
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
> William Daffer wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
> >
> > > John Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > In <38545445...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 13
> > > > Dec 1999 02:04:53 +0000, David E Michael
> > > > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> John Morris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> > In <3853BE94...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on
> > > > >> > Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:26:12 +0000, David E Michael
> > > > >> By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
> > > > >> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > > > >> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> > > >
> > > > >And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead
> > > > >he has to make up lies. How odd!
> > > >
David
steve wolk
Fine. If you will supply me with an address where registered mail can
be delivered, we can proceed. Unfortunately, due to your prior history
in these matters, I will not negotiate with you via e-mail.
Steve
grandwazoo
> Orac wrote:
>
> > In article <38545445...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
> > >> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > >> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> > >>
> > >> -- Andrew Skolnick
> > >
> > >And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead he has
> > >to make up lies. How odd!
> >
> > You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side"
> > being tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
>
> I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the lesser of
> the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom could
> be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of lives
> and led to a better world.
>
> > You don't
> > appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted the "blood
> > of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
>
> Do you deny it?
>
> > That quote alone is an excellent example
> > that demonstrates where your sympathies lie with regards to the
> > combatants in WWII, and it wasn't with the Allies.
> >
>
> I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with Stalin and
> with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
Obviously, your sympathies lay with Hitler and his brand of *butcher-bomber*.
Your *lesser of two evil* seems quite confused as to your definition of "evil".
It's a bit like asking someone if they prefer to die by dysentery or diphtheria.
Although I am confused as to why someone could consider a Churchill and Hitler
alliance in any hypothetical scenario. The alliance with the Soviet was made by a
common enemy, "the enemy of my enemy..." WW2 was, in some respects, a
continuation of WW1. It is clear who the territorial aggressor was that triggered
the events. After the war the Soviet expanded as a territorial aggressor and
became the enemy of the 'Cold War' and the nuclear M.A.D. strategy made WW3 an
insane alternative (saving many lives). Democracy has been the political force in
ending the 'Cold War', and in the absence of a hot war, democracy seems to be a
natural evolution of political systems. We can see that Germany's problems really
began when Hitler was given the power to govern by decree, in effect abandoning
democratic principles.
--
Avital Pilpel
> I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the lesser of
> the two evils
I see. So you do not support the nazis, you just wish Hitler would have
won the war.
Just like you are not an antisemite, you just dislike jews.
Avital Pilpel
Orac
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Orac wrote:
>> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side" being
>> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
>
>I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the lesser of
>the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom could
>be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
>Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of lives
>and led to a better world.
An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
>> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted the
>> "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
>
>Do you deny it?
Yes.
>> That quote alone is an excellent example that demonstrates where your
>> sympathies lie with regards to the combatants in WWII, and it wasn't with
>> the Allies.
>>
>
>I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with Stalin and
>with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
Instead, they lie with the butcher-bombers of Hitler.
David E Michael
Orac wrote:
> In article <38570B78...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Orac wrote:
>
> >> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side" being
> >> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
> >
> >I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the lesser of
> >the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom could
> >be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> >Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of lives
> >and led to a better world.
>
> An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
>
Far less evil than an alliance with Stalin, surely.
>
> >> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted the
> >> "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
> >
> >Do you deny it?
>
> Yes.
>
How do you account for the hanging of Streicher then?
>
> >> That quote alone is an excellent example that demonstrates where your
> >> sympathies lie with regards to the combatants in WWII, and it wasn't with
> >> the Allies.
> >>
> >
> >I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with Stalin and
> >with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
>
> Instead, they lie with the butcher-bombers of Hitler.
>
Not in the least.
>
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
> a.k.a. |
> David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
> | inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
David
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > William Daffer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > >
> > > > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > John Morris wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In <38545445...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 13
> > > > > > Dec 1999 02:04:53 +0000, David E Michael
> > > > > > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> John Morris wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > In <3853BE94...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on
> > > > > > >> > Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:26:12 +0000, David E Michael
> > > > > > >> By now, I don't think any sci.skeptic reader is unaware of
> > > > > > >> David Michael's gross dishonesty. With his own words, he has
> > > > > > >> been exposed over and over again as a liar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >And yet liar Skolnick has been unable to give any examples. Instead
> > > > > > >he has to make up lies. How odd!
> > > > > >
Then you can post material in alt.revisionism where everyone can see it. All I need
is the address of someone who can administer the test in Lincolnshire, England, and
the details of a contact person there who can confirm that you have paid for the
test.
David
Orac
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Orac wrote:
>> An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
>>
>
>Far less evil than an alliance with Stalin, surely.
*Far* less evil? No, I'd say it was pretty close to a wash.
[Snip]
Avital Pilpel
> > An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
>
> Far less evil than an alliance with Stalin, surely.
Not really. Hitler's dream was a europe where all the jews, gypsies and
other smaller "inhumans" exterminated, all the slavs (communists or not it
didn't matter - *all* slavs were "subhuman", and were treated that way by
the Germans) as illiterate brute hordes good only for the darkest manual
labor for their German masters, and all western Europeans and the
"higher-class" servants to the "master race". It is chilling to think how
close Hitler came to achieving this goal. Read "Mein Kampf" or Hitler's
1940's "Table talk" and see for yourself. Stalinists Russia, even in its
darkest time, wasn't even CLOSE to this nightmarish "new order".
Of course, you don't have to take MY word for it. After Hitler invaded
Russia in an act of naked agression, initially many Eastern Europeans WERE
willing to cooperate with them, as they were not particualrly fond of
Stalinism, to say the least. But within one year - when what Hitler's
"New Order" REALLY meant for them became rather clear - practically the
entire population in the German-occupied areas became fanatically
anti-German, with millions joining the partisans and the rest hoping to
the day the red army will release them from that hell. The German
documents - to say nothing of the millions of people who did it - make
that point quite clear.
So, Mr. Michael, your claim that Hitler was "better" than Stalin is not
only contradicted by examining what Hitler really did and meant to do, but
is also contradicted by the behavior of those who knew best what both
Stalinism and Hitlerism really meant.
But of course, you are merely using the same propaganda trick Hitler used:
you claim you are really just "fighting Bolshevism", but what you REALLY
mean in practice is that you think that Hitler enslaving all of europe and
killing off the jews is a good idea.
> > >Do you deny it?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> How do you account for the hanging of Streicher then?
Read the verdict against him and see. Sreicher was hardly "innocent". "Der
Sturmer" had incited for murder for years, and had a significant effect on
readying the minds of the German people to look at the the "removal" of
the jews for later extermination without protest and even with glee. And
this doesn't begin to cover the crimes he ordered as Reich "protector" for
Bohemia and Moravia.
"Innocent"? Not really. Important accessory to mass murder is more like
it.
In fact, Streicher had reached an all-time low in human popularity, as
his insane antisemitism lead the prison commanders to isolate him
from his fellow prisoners, being considered too low a character for
other major war criminals to associate with.
I am not surprised, however, that you defend this scum. I'm sure you
would have been good friends.
> > >I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with Stalin and
> > >with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
> >
> > Instead, they lie with the butcher-bombers of Hitler.
> >
>
> Not in the least.
Riiiiight.
You are not an antisemite, you just dislike jews.
You are not a nazi, you just wish Hitler had won the war.
And now this new one:
You do not have sympathy for Hitler's people, you just think Streicher
(of all people!) was a poor, innocent man.
Go figure.
Avital Pilpel
Warren All-Stars
David E Michael wrote:
So I can go to the expense of the test and have you not show up? Or have you object to
the polygrapher I designate? Or have you object to the time and/or place of the
exam? These things must be agreed to beforehand. I was not born yesterday. If all
you want to do is wiggle, don't waste my time like you have Yale's. This will be done
legally, not on faith.
Steve
Buck Turgidson
> > > > >
> > > > > PS. Gord awaits, David. Why haven't you answered him?
> > > >
> > > > Back in the spring, I challenged Mr. Michael to take a one question
> > > > polygraph exam, which I would pay for. The question was whether he was
> > > > an anti-semite, which he claims not to be. Mr. Michael never responded.
> > > > So why should you be surprised that he hasn't accepted Mr. Morris's
> > > > challenge and has fled from the Himmler challenge?
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > > - --[...]
> > >
> > > Must have missed that one, Mr Wolk. I accept your challenge. What now?
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Fine. If you will supply me with an address where registered mail can
> > be delivered, we can proceed. Unfortunately, due to your prior history
> > in these matters, I will not negotiate with you via e-mail.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Then you can post material in alt.revisionism where everyone can see it. All I need
> is the address of someone who can administer the test in Lincolnshire, England, and
> the details of a contact person there who can confirm that you have paid for the
> test.
>
> David
Let the backpedaling begin.
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
Buck Turgidson
> Orac wrote:
>
> > In article <38570B78...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Orac wrote:
> >
> > >> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side" being
> > >> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
> > >
> > >I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the lesser of
> > >the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom could
> > >be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> > >Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of lives
> > >and led to a better world.
> >
> > An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
> >
>
> Far less evil than an alliance with Stalin, surely.
"Far less evil" by allying ourselves with a madman whose declared aim was to
eradicte Jewry from the globe? You are insane, you know.
>
>
> >
> > >> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted the
> > >> "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
> > >
> > >Do you deny it?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> How do you account for the hanging of Streicher then?
He was an evil fuck whose propaganda helped incite the murder of millions. HTH.
>
>
> >
> > >> That quote alone is an excellent example that demonstrates where your
> > >> sympathies lie with regards to the combatants in WWII, and it wasn't with
> > >> the Allies.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with Stalin and
> > >with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
> >
> > Instead, they lie with the butcher-bombers of Hitler.
> >
>
> Not in the least.
Better be careful, Curdles. After all, you did claim that was "our side." You
wouldn't want your Nazi buddies to think you were abandoning them.
Tim Stevens
news:38584F2F...@btinternet.com...
Sounds like a pretty good description of your response to the Himmler
challenge.
steve wolk
>
>
> David
Come off it, Mr. Michael. You're not fooling anyone. If I pay the
fiddler, I call the tune. I'm told it works that way in England too.
Steve
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
(snip)
> > > Must have missed that one, Mr Wolk. I accept your challenge. What now?
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Fine. If you will supply me with an address where registered mail can
> > be delivered, we can proceed. Unfortunately, due to your prior history
> > in these matters, I will not negotiate with you via e-mail.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Then you can post material in alt.revisionism where everyone can see it. All I need
> is the address of someone who can administer the test in Lincolnshire, England, and
> the details of a contact person there who can confirm that you have paid for the
> test.
>
> David
>
You don't read very well, do you David? I'll reiterate with
emphasis, so you can understand.
<emphasis>
If you will supply me with an address where REGISTERED MAIL CAN
BE DELIVERED, WE CAN PROCEED. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO YOUR PRIOR HISTORY
IN THESE MATTERS, I WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH YOU VIA E-MAIL.
</emphasis>
I feel certain that Steve will include posting to alt.revisionism in
the same category as negotiating via email. And you'll notice, he
said for you to supply him with a postal address *before* he
mentioned email, so that particular juvenile misrepresentation isn't
available to you.
William
PS. When are you going to answer Gord. It's been, oh, 4 days now.
Could it be that you are 'distancing' yourself from your statement
that you were 'willing to negotiate with McVay, Edeiken or anybody?'
As I recall, you only gave Mr. McVay a total of 22 hours before you
started heckling him for an answer and playing the 'cock on the
walk.'
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFhmaCKcKc3OYUhpAQHsOAP+IHFeih72GDV8PZpU8DnqVd21+2cc5TYA
LXQOxtXFMMzh+315on8/LJpHw9Tin/Y2gx5LJmiN8R/IfdN0S0V8RxvbwXD5m1oh
1m1btXZGmvAPzThll/KQfuwCN5Kezz9ivPOKxDlTz8xTbgt6LGkIQh+CeSpIL3XQ
HWvE31PQjoE=
=xuPu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
> Warren All-Stars wrote:
>
> > David E Michael wrote:
> >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
(snip)
> > > > > Must have missed that one, Mr Wolk. I accept your challenge. What now?
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > >
> > > > Fine. If you will supply me with an address where registered mail can
> > > > be delivered, we can proceed. Unfortunately, due to your prior history
> > > > in these matters, I will not negotiate with you via e-mail.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > Then you can post material in alt.revisionism where everyone can
> > > see it. All I need is the address of someone who can administer
> > > the test in Lincolnshire, England, and the details of a contact
> > > person there who can confirm that you have paid for the test.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > So I can go to the expense of the test and have you not show up?
> > Or have you object to the polygrapher I designate? Or have you
> > object to the time and/or place of the exam? These things must be
> > agreed to beforehand. I was not born yesterday. If all you want
> > to do is wiggle, don't waste my time like you have Yale's. This
> > will be done legally, not on faith.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Translation: 'erk . . . what have I got myself into?'
>
> Your move, Mr Wolk.
>
> David
>
Have you supplied him with the requested postal address where
registered mail can be sent, as requested by Mr. Wolk?
If not, then it's *your* move. Your first move, to be exact.
William
PS. Why haven't you replied to Gord McFee's request for a postal
address and the name of your solicitor? You did say you were "willing
to negotiate with McVay, Edeiken or anybody" on the Himmler
challenge, did you not? It's been 4 days now, more than 4 times
longer than you gave Mr. McVay when first you 'accepted' the Himmler
Challenge.
I put 'accepted' in quotes because it took you another three weeks
to actually *read* the challenge that you were accepting.
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFhn6SKcKc3OYUhpAQHATAQAw08EzcYHHDUlBZBOhoVzkvJMlfZwi5hH
wiRGhySfsicLaruQ69c90DvdTUXf4B14qUqVS5e7i78QDHcFJeP8wMR7F9zB7ple
SoLQKridBth+5wlTg0GEo8xl5dO/tuWslU3Nzo6nc4dXm4hb8SXm51uMsstMnB0e
L2Ohg3ztkyg=
=+4Br
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Philip Mathews
Since you lied about your intention to post all the Himmler negotiations, why
should that provide Steve any more sense of security?
Looks like your trying to back away from this challenge too.
Philip Mathews
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <385816F5...@btinternet.com> in sci.skeptic, on Wed, 15 Dec
1999 22:32:22 +0000, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>Orac wrote:
[snip]
>> >> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the
>> >> Allies wanted the "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
>> >Do you deny it?
>> Yes.
>How do you account for the hanging of Streicher then?
[snip]
How did Streicher become men in the plural? Are you saying that
Goering was innocent? Kaltenbrunner? Ribbentrop?
If the IMT was out for the "blood of innocent men," why didn't they
hang Hess, Speer, Raeder, or Von Shirach? Why did they acquit
Schacht, Papen, and Fritzsche?
Julius Streicher advocated the murder of Jews, and his advocacy was
acted upon. He was an accessory to murder.
Here's the definition from _Black's_:
Accessory
[...]
Criminal law. Contributing to or aiding in the commission of
a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of
a felonious offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a
chief actor, but as a participator, as by command, advice,
instigation, or concealment.
[...]
Before the fact. One who orders, counsels, encourages, or
otherwise aids and abets another to commit a felony and who is
not present at the commission of the offense.
At Nuremberg, about 25 instances were read into the record where, in
the pages of his newspaper _Der Stuermer_, Streicher counseled and
encouraged the killing of Jews. That was just as illegal in Germany
in 1939 as it is in America in 1999.
The one mitigating circumstance in Streicher's case is that he was
quite literally a borderline idiot, so while the judges did not err
in convicting him, they may have erred in hanging him. No doubt the
judges were influenced by the fact that Streicher was utterly odious
and unrepentant.
- - --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOFg1yJQgvG272fn9EQK2JwCgwMiEvIJFvXyQI2uB2UvUHmmy6U0AoLze
BN2ss1mBNkR36gpBPksahZYD
=AV9k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David E Michael
Warren All-Stars wrote:
Translation: 'erk . . . what have I got myself into?'
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
Then tell me who you want to do the testing. I am waiting, Mr Wolk.
David
steve wolk
Sorry, no tickee, no shirtee. Mailing address first.
Steve
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
Why? Just post to alt.revisionism.
David
steve wolk
This is the second time you have used this tactic. The answer is the
same as the first time. You have no financial stake in this. It is my
dollar and you will not dictate terms to me. I want this little dance
to me Michael-proof. No loop-holes for you to wiggle through. If you
continue in this manner, it is obvious that your acceptance of my
challenge is as bogus as your acceptance of the Himmler challenge. Now
put up or shut up. I may have deep pockets but patience is not one of
my virtues.
Steve
Yale F. Edeiken
Orac <Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Orac_USA-010936...@news.earthlink.net...
> In article <38570B78...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Orac wrote:
> >> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side"
being
> >> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
> >
> >I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the
lesser of
> >the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom
could
> >be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> >Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of
lives
> >and led to a better world.
>
> An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
And an even stranger idea of what a "better world" is.
> >> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted
the
> >> "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
> >Do you deny it?
> Yes.
It is strange that Lord Haw Haw claims he does not deny the Holocaust
yet calls the men charged with committing it "innocent men."
II, and it wasn't with
> >> the Allies.
> >I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with
Stalin and
> >with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
> Instead, they lie with the butcher-bombers of Hitler.
And isn't it strange that a person who claims to be a British
"Nationalist" would ber "insulted" if someone claimed he supported Britain
when it went to war.
Apparently Lord Haw-Haw is coming unglued.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Yale F. Edeiken
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:385816F5...@btinternet.com...
>
>
> Orac wrote:
> > In article <38570B78...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Orac wrote:
> >
> > >> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side"
being
> > >> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
> > >
> > >I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the
lesser of
> > >the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom
could
> > >be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> > >Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of
lives
> > >and led to a better world.
> > An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
> Far less evil than an alliance with Stalin, surely.
Only to a convinced nazi like you.
> > >> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies
wanted the
> > >> "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
> > >
> > >Do you deny it?
> >
> > Yes.
> How do you account for the hanging of Streicher then?
Because he was guilty of the charges made against him.
> > >I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with
Stalin and
> > >with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
> >
> > Instead, they lie with the butcher-bombers of Hitler.
> Not in the least.
Then why claim them as "out side" as you have done?
Your lies are catching up to you Lord Haw Haw.
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
Steve -- just post the name and address of the place I must go for the test. It's as simple as that.
David
David E Michael
Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
> Orac <Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Orac_USA-010936...@news.earthlink.net...
> > In article <38570B78...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Orac wrote:
>
> > >> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side"
> being
> > >> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
> > >
> > >I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the
> lesser of
> > >the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom
> could
> > >be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> > >Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of
> lives
> > >and led to a better world.
> >
> > An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
>
> And an even stranger idea of what a "better world" is.
>
> > >> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted
> the
> > >> "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
>
> > >Do you deny it?
>
> > Yes.
>
> It is strange that Lord Haw Haw claims he does not deny the Holocaust
> yet calls the men charged with committing it "innocent men."
>
> II, and it wasn't with
> > >> the Allies.
>
> > >I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with
> Stalin and
> > >with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
>
> > Instead, they lie with the butcher-bombers of Hitler.
>
> And isn't it strange that a person who claims to be a British
> "Nationalist" would ber "insulted" if someone claimed he supported Britain
> when it went to war.
>
> Apparently Lord Haw-Haw is coming unglued.
>
> --YFE
>
> The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
> The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
> The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
> The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Since you have just been roundly rapped over the knuckles by your 'boss', Mr
McVay, for apparently conspiring to incite violence against a poster in this
newsgroup, I think that perhaps you should keep a low profile lest the details
of your sordid behaviour find their way to your superiors in Pennsylvania.
David
William Daffer
Why don't you post yours, if you're so happy that other people use
this forum. You always seems so *eager* to have other people post
their addresses in the alt.revisionism, yet strangely reluctance to
reciprocate.
Besides, Mr. Wolk has already asked for a mailing address to which
certified mail can be sent. If need be, send it to him via email.
But don't let that stop you from wiggling, like you are currently
doing with Gord's response to your pontififying in the Himmler
Challenge.
William
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFkUDSKcKc3OYUhpAQFM3wP+PTZJxsI42BF/XC0pJzh0zHVkZqbdZWJ9
AFg7NZpGb2iqJJg//nmCKkTvl95baRRG31y5APQFgIfP6UVflJCZutO3SsdejzlZ
oaXtPxjJKw4dM0qJ5cjFPHFN64XAD82wVz6swQ6UcNI/JytrUTSWNlCIRXw4fff1
Mvaovpo2unA=
=4AmJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
(snip the Michael dance)
> > This is the second time you have used this tactic. The answer is the
> > same as the first time. You have no financial stake in this. It is my
> > dollar and you will not dictate terms to me. I want this little dance
> > to me Michael-proof. No loop-holes for you to wiggle through. If you
> > continue in this manner, it is obvious that your acceptance of my
> > challenge is as bogus as your acceptance of the Himmler challenge. Now
> > put up or shut up. I may have deep pockets but patience is not one of
> > my virtues.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Steve -- just post the name and address of the place I must go for
> the test. It's as simple as that.
>
> David
>
Give up, Steve. He's wiggled out of this one too. He simply will not
act as a gentleman.
For a man that claims to negotiate contracts all the time, you are
strangely adverse to give anyone the name of you lawyer.
William
PS. What about Gord's challenge? Aren't you wiggling there too? You
said you'd negotiate with anyone, Gord responded affirmatively and
asked for an post address where certified mail can be sent and the
name and address of your lawyer. Have you responded yet? I think
not. It's been 5 days. That's more than 5 times longer than you gave
Mr. McVay after you 'accepted' the Himmler challenge. Pity it took
you another 3 weeks to actually *read* the challenge you had
accepted.
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFkVnyKcKc3OYUhpAQH7jAP+MJ2M4l3RNhl67LmmvKW76dVi89kh59u/
JxGAK8jebzuBL9WXcj9thCMlmcEYEBotqn0+4lPWC8rqgEaJjeMA+TrbE/IxfFZL
Rtxcsd16CAEMV/E3IrgrTvkNQD6JuI7FtBEMon2gu0GUjTeFWIVSuxBHRK1T5CGl
gxvtAzPCdCE=
=1uBU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
> Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
>
> > Orac <Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Orac_USA-010936...@news.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <38570B78...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> > > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Orac wrote:
> >
> > > >> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side"
> > being
> > > >> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
> > > >
> > > >I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the
> > lesser of
> > > >the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom
> > could
> > > >be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> > > >Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of
> > lives
> > > >and led to a better world.
> > >
> > > An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
> >
> > And an even stranger idea of what a "better world" is.
> >
> > > >> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies wanted
> > the
Looks like Mr. Edeiken hit a nerve there, David. That sounds like a
threat to quell Mr. Edeiken into silence. Careful, your veneer of
support for 'free speech,' ever thin, is now delaminating. Not
surprising. Verneer only adheres to substrata that has some
integrity, is dirt free and 'non-slippery.' And you've shown none of
these.
William
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFkXMiKcKc3OYUhpAQFB8wQA2BlL/kMLM0phi7GCtSvMrTpU5mTtDty+
cFa9XssA+m4aGGf5IOkl39VuT3VQ2Gi0G5hCTmDDjDPsBfZDir9F1oHcfs2FdjUC
yvTvZZN2injkpln6U+seD6NGqKgv9Btu1vBFnwoii6elCYfU9IV/8QGainxqH3Xp
OSbRKjTpJXQ=
=melF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Yale F. Edeiken
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:385903EB...@btinternet.com...
Dodging questions with the speed of light Lord Haw Haw decides to lie
again.
> > > >> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our
side"
> > being
> > > >> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
> > > >
> > > >I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the
> > lesser of
> > > >the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of
whom
> > could
> > > >be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> > > >Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot
of
> > lives
> > > >and led to a better world.
> > >
> > > An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
> > And an even stranger idea of what a "better world" is.
>
No anwer from the lying cocksucker.
ying that you asserted that the Allies wanted
> > the
> > > >> "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
> >
> > > >Do you deny it?
> >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > It is strange that Lord Haw Haw claims he does not deny the
Holocaust
> > yet calls the men charged with committing it "innocent men."
No answer from the lying cocksucker.
> > II, and it wasn't with
> > > >> the Allies.
> >
> > > >I would be insulted if anyone suggested that my sympathies lay with
> > Stalin and
> > > >with the butcher-bombers of Britain and America.
>
> > > Instead, they lie with the butcher-bombers of Hitler.
> >
> > And isn't it strange that a person who claims to be a British
> > "Nationalist" would ber "insulted" if someone claimed he supported
Britain
> > when it went to war.
No answer from the lying cocksucker.
\> > Apparently Lord Haw-Haw is coming unglued.
Nop answer from the lying cocksucker.
> Since you have just been roundly rapped over the knuckles by your 'boss',
Mr
> McVay,
The first lie from the lyiung cocksucker.
McVay is not and has never been by "boss."
>for apparently conspiring to incite violence against a poster in this
> newsgroup
That's a sdecond lie from a lying cocksucker.
>I think that perhaps you should keep a low profile lest the details
> of your sordid behaviour find their way to your superiors in Pennsylvania.
What "sordid behavior" you lying cocksucker? Telling other victims of a
criminal attack the names of the criminal.
Where I come from that's quite the oppoisite of sordid.
And here's something else for you to dodge as the lying cocksucker you
are.
A typical set of lies from Lord Haw Haw
> And now for the true version.
With is replete with lies as can be expected from Lord Haw Haw.
> 1. Ken McVay challenged Mat Giwer to have the tape of the Himmler Posen
> speech analysed. If found to be genuine, Giwer to pay costs of analysis.
If
> found to be not genuine, Nizkor to pay costs of analysis.
True.
> 2. I expressed an interest in having the tapes analysed. McVay appointed
> Edeiken to represent him.
Not quite true. Lord Haw Haw legally accepted the challenge - apparently
without
reading it.
It should also be noted that I was retained to negotiate the contract as
part of the original
challenge.
> 3. Edeiken drew up draft contract (see Nizkor site).
Correct.
> 4. I sent him some observations on the draft contract (see Nizkor site).
A whopper here from Lord Haw Haw. He asked for the delay of over a month
so he
could consult a lawyer. In fact, that request was fraudulent as he never
consulted an attorney.
Further he objected to every clause of the contract including boilerplate
and a clause put in to
protect HIS interests. He further demanded that the contract be rewritten to
state that his expert
be the person performing the tests. In a display of utter bad faith he
misrepresented the
credentials of the expert he had chosen.
> 5. He sent me some observations on my observations (see Nizkor site).
False. I replied by informing Lord Haw Haw of the amendments to which my
client
agreed and informed him of of the legal absurdities he was proposing.
> 6. I responded indicating what I saw as the areas of agreement, areas that
> I'd need to refer to my lawyers and areas where there was currently no
> agreement. I suggested areas of compromise on the areas where there was
> currently no agreement.
False. Lord Haw Haw then raised new objections most of which were legal
nonsense.
Nor did he negotiate in good faith. As an example, Lord Haw Haw made the
request that he
approve all cost over-runs. My clinet agreed and it was proposed to that it
be expressed in the
contract as a percentage of the estimated cost. Lord Haw Haw was asked to
name a figure that
was acceptable to him as the thresh-hold for his approval. He refused to do
so.
> 7. Edeiken responded, rejecting most of my suggested areas of compromise.
A total lie. No "observations" were made. I refused to negotiate legal
matters with Lord
Haw Haw, based on his failure to understand the basics of contract law (one
of his demands was
the the contract be made binding on persons who were not parties to the
contract) and advised
him to seek the advice of counsel. Lord Haw Haw refused.
Lord Haw Haw was also informed that no further drafts of a contract would
be preseted
to him until there was a final agreement from him and his counsel. Lord Haw
Haw replied "I
agree with this modus operandi."
> 8. I invited Edeiken to draw up another contract giving solutions to the
> outstanding areas of difficulty that would be acceptable to both parties.
I
> undertook to refer such a contract to my lawyers for fine tuning.
False. First Lord Haw Haw had already agreed that this was not the proper
procedure.
Second, both I and my client were content with the proposal on the table.
There were no
"outstanding areas of disagreement" due to anything other than the failure
of Lord Haw Haw to
seek legal advice.
> 9. Edeiken refused to provide such contract. He further announced, in an
> unguarded moment, that he 'would have boobed' if I signed a contract with
> Nizkor. In the light of this intransigence I announced that I would not
> continue unless McVay appointed another lawyer.
A series of lies and misrepresentations from Lord Haw Haw.
First, I already had an agreement from him that no further draft would be
sought.
Second, I refused to act as his counsel and informed him that he was to
propose any
alternate language he wished to include. He failed to do so.
Third, I objected to his failure to provide material requested. This
included provision of
an expert report which he had quoted excerpts from and asked me to accept.
His repsonse to this
reasonable request was "Hard cheddar." Further, after his mendacious
statement that no such
requests had been made, I demanded a mailing address where future
communications could be
sent by registered mail. He refused to provide such address.
Fourth, his claim about my statement is a lie as has been repeatedly shown.
The only truth in Lord Haw Haw's statement is that on May 21, 1999, Lord
Haw Haw
ended the negotiations by stating "I will not proceed further with this
matter . . ."
> 10. McVay did not appoint another lawyer.
Tough cheddar.
> 11. I indicated that if Edeiken would provide the requested contract, I
> would proceed and refer it to my lawyers.
A lie. The last statement to me of my client was on May 21, 1999 when he
ended the
negotiations by stating "I will not proceed further with this matter . . .
That statement has never
been withdrawn.
> 12. Edeiken refused to do so.
For the reasons stated above. Not only would I have been acting as his
counsel while
doing so, I had no place to send him any such redraft.
> 13. I threw the challenge open to anyone else who was interested in taking
> it up, given that Edeiken was clearly not going to proceed with the
matter.
False. It was Lord Haw Haw who withdrew from the negotiations.
> 14. The current status is that I am prepared to negotiate a contract to
have
> the tapes analysed either with McVay, Edeiken, or anyone else.
False. The current status is that Lord Haw Haw had withdrawn from all
negotiations by
stating "I will not proceed further with this matter . . . ." This has
never been retracted.
In short, since his pattern of conduct overwhelmingly demonstrates bad
faith, he has
nothing left in his quiver except spamming various newgroups with his lies.
He made fourteen statements above and 12 were serious misrepresentations.
Watch how he runs from any meaningful answer to the facts just as he runs
from his own
words.
The simple truth is that his mouth wrote a check his body could not cash
and now he is
wiggling like mad to escape the results of his idiocy.
steve wolk
It is plain to see that you are not serious about this. If you change
your mind, let me know.
Steve
steve wolk
Indeed, that is all I require. After all, I did not require him to post
it in alt.rev. At this point, it seems his commitment to this
undertaking is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Steve
David E Michael
> The first lie from the lyiung cocksucker.
>
> McVay is not and has never been by "boss."
Did he or did he not appoint you to represent Nizkor in the Himmler challenge?
Yes or no, Mr Edeiken?
Given his public criticism of you, do you or do you not remain the legal
representative of Nizkor and/or McVay in the Himmler challenge? Yes or no, Mr
Edeiken?
Did you or did you not pass the address of Scott Bradbury to any third party?
Yes or no, Mr Edeiken?
David
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
Steve -- you have issued a challenge. The challenge was that I should take a polygraph test, which you will
pay for. I have accepted the challenge. Now where must I go to take the test? All we need is an address in
Lincolnshire and a telephone number. Why can you not provide this?
David
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
Certified mail is not necessary. Just post in alt.revisionism, Steve. Why are you so anxious to get my
home address?
David
Kenneth McVay OBC
but I have received email I consider somewhat abusive from Mr. Edeiken,
and am compelled to respond, and to do so initially by sharing his
outburst with you:
<!--Begin email cut and paste-->
I hope you're you fucking son of a bitch.
I suggest you mae some response to this.
Make it hard and make it fast.
--yfe
<!--End email cut and paste-->
He includes a UseNet article (see References, above) in which David
Michaels apparently said (the article has not arrived on my server
yet):
<!--Begin UseNet quote-->
Since you have just been roundly rapped over the knuckles by your 'boss',
Mr McVay, for apparently conspiring to incite violence against a poster
in this newsgroup, I think that perhaps you should keep a low profile
lest the details of your sordid behaviour find their way to your
superiors in Pennsylvania.
David
<!--End UseNet quote-->
You may recall that Mr. Edeiken said
"Make it hard and make it fast."
and so I must. Here is my response, Mr. Michael:
I am not now, nor have I ever been, Mr. Edeiken's boss. Further, Mr.
Edeiken has no connection with the Nizkor Project, and has not had one
since mid-July, when I removed him from a Nizkor mailing list. For
1998 and 1999, the only real connection Mr. Edeiken had with Nizkor
was making you look foolish with respect to the Himmler tape.
With respect to your interpretation of my words, I can only suggest
that you read them again:
<exact copy>
To be fair, one should also ask how nazihunter got the name and
address in the first place, shouldn't one?
Yale Edeiken distributed it to a holocaust-history.org mailing list,
and to a few, including me, outside the list. If you are going to
condemn nazihunter, as you properly are, then should you not also ask
what Yale hoped to achieve by distributing the address in the first
place?
I posted it on Nizkor for about 90 minutes, until I realized, on
reflection, that it was the wrong thing to do, and deleted it... so,
in the end, it could have come from anywhere... but it originated with
someone who should have known better, as he himself had been the
target of a similar attack.
<copy ends>
If that is what you feel Mr. Edeiken meant to achieve, that is your
opinion, one I am not prepared to share.
However, I think it would have been hypocritical of me to remain silent,
all the while knowing where the information came from, while others were
being justifiably pilloried for making improper use of it.
Who is to be blamed more? The person wielding the weapon, or the one
who provided it? You tell me.
[Posted and emailed]
--
The Nizkor Project An Electronic Holocaust Education Resource
Ken McVay, Director http://www.nizkor.org/~kmcvay
NetMeeting: Ken McVay ICQ: 7015822
steve wolk
This has already been explained to you TWICE. I will not explain it a
third time. Unless you are willing to bear the cost of the test, accept
my terms or wiggle away.
Steve
steve wolk
Nothing was said about your home address. I want an address where you
personally must sign for certified mail.
Steve
Orac
McVay OBC) wrote:
>I don't like posting email as a rule, although I confess I have done,
Then don't.
You appear to have no problem breaking the rule in this case. Clearly, it must
not be a particularly binding rule to you.
>but I have received email I consider somewhat abusive from Mr. Edeiken,
>and am compelled to respond, and to do so initially by sharing his
>outburst with you:
>
><!--Begin email cut and paste-->
>
> I hope you're you fucking son of a bitch.
>
> I suggest you mae some response to this.
>
> Make it hard and make it fast.
>
>--yfe
And to what end do you wish to "share" this outburst with us? What does it
accomplish for you to break one of the primary rules of Netiquette? What do you
gain by it? Do you post EVERY abusive e-mail you receive to a.r? Yale directed
his "outburst" at you in private. Clearly, he's pissed off at you for some
reason. He did not post it to Usenet for all to see, which he could have done.
Presumably he so because he considered it a private matter. You should have
dealt with it privately, rather than publicizing it. Why are you publicizing it?
[Denials that Yale works for Nizkor snipped]
>To be fair, one should also ask how nazihunter got the name and
>address in the first place, shouldn't one?
Of course, one should indeed ask that, but that's not the only question one
should ask about this whole sordid affair, is it? (See below)
>Yale Edeiken distributed it to a holocaust-history.org mailing list,
>and to a few, including me, outside the list. If you are going to
>condemn nazihunter, as you properly are, then should you not also ask
>what Yale hoped to achieve by distributing the address in the first
>place?
Of course, but you forgot one more question one should ask, to be fair, of
course. One must also equally ask what *you* hope to achieve by publicizing this
and posting private e-mail to a public newsgroup. I would want to know BOTH
things. Only then would I try to decide where I stand in the whole situation.
>I posted it on Nizkor for about 90 minutes, until I realized, on
>reflection, that it was the wrong thing to do, and deleted it... so,
>in the end, it could have come from anywhere... but it originated with
>someone who should have known better, as he himself had been the
>target of a similar attack.
By your own logic, even if you did have a change of heart, one should then also
equally ask *you* what *you* hoped to accomplish by posting the address to
Nizkor, shouldn't one? In fact, I just did.
>If that is what you feel Mr. Edeiken meant to achieve, that is your
>opinion, one I am not prepared to share.
>
>However, I think it would have been hypocritical of me to remain silent,
>all the while knowing where the information came from, while others were
>being justifiably pilloried for making improper use of it.
Who is being "unjustifiably" pilloried for making improper use of this
information, Ken? I saw no posts "pillorying" anyone other than the anonymous
little cowardly maggot "Nazihunter" He/she/it deserved each and every barb aimed
his/her way--and more. I aimed a few his/her/its way myself. I admit I might
have missed posts "pillorying" someone else because sometimes articles take a
while to propagate to my news server, but I doubt it. So, I ask again: Who is
being "pilloried" unjustly for being "Nazihunter"?
>Who is to be blamed more? The person wielding the weapon, or the one
>who provided it? You tell me.
I will. But before that, one could also ask: Who is more culpable, one who
leaves a weapon in a public site, accessible to anyone, knowing that anyone
could pick it up and use it, or someone who leaves a weapon in a private club
among people he/she thinks he/she can trust? If your version of events is true,
then that's what we're really talking about, isn't it, Ken?
Basically, you're glossing over the fact that it is entirely possible that by
posting Scotty's address to Nizkor's website, even if only for 90 min, YOU were
the one to provide "Nazihunter" with the weapon. Surely you knew when you posted
it to a public website that it might fall into the wrong hands. At the very
least, your action shows recklessness of a higher degree than that you accuse
Yale of. At the worst, it means you wanted the information to be used, which is
exactly what you seem to be accusing Yale of.
But back to your question: The person wielding the weapon is more culpable. A
person given a weapon does not have to pull the trigger and use it. He/she can
always say no. The person providing the weapon may or may not have intended for
it to be used and may or may not have been able to predict whether anyone would
use it and may or may not have intended for the person receiving the weapon to
pass it on. That person, unless he/she knew that the weapon would be used or
passed on to someone who would use it, can be accused, at most, only of
cluelessness and maybe recklessness. The person who uses the weapon is
ultimately to blame for its use.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
a.k.a. |
David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
David E Michael
Kenneth McVay OBC wrote:
> I don't like posting email as a rule, although I confess I have done,
> but I have received email I consider somewhat abusive from Mr. Edeiken,
> and am compelled to respond, and to do so initially by sharing his
> outburst with you:
>
> <!--Begin email cut and paste-->
>
> I hope you're you fucking son of a bitch.
>
> I suggest you mae some response to this.
>
> Make it hard and make it fast.
>
> --yfe
>
> <!--End email cut and paste-->
>
> He includes a UseNet article (see References, above) in which David
> Michaels apparently said (the article has not arrived on my server
> yet):
>
> <!--Begin UseNet quote-->
>
> Since you have just been roundly rapped over the knuckles by your 'boss',
> Mr McVay, for apparently conspiring to incite violence against a poster
> in this newsgroup, I think that perhaps you should keep a low profile
> lest the details of your sordid behaviour find their way to your
> superiors in Pennsylvania.
>
> David
>
> <!--End UseNet quote-->
>
> You may recall that Mr. Edeiken said
>
> "Make it hard and make it fast."
>
> and so I must. Here is my response, Mr. Michael:
>
> I am not now, nor have I ever been, Mr. Edeiken's boss.
Ah, so you *didn't* appoint him to represent Nizkor and/or yourself in the
Himmler challenge? It was all lies? Yes or no, Mr McVay?
> Further, Mr.
> Edeiken has no connection with the Nizkor Project, and has not had one
> since mid-July, when I removed him from a Nizkor mailing list. For
> 1998 and 1999, the only real connection Mr. Edeiken had with Nizkor
> was making you look foolish with respect to the Himmler tape.
>
Ah, so you had no intention of pursuing the challenge? Your statement that Mr
Edeiken was to 'represent' Nizkor was a lie? Edeiken's only function was to
make me 'look foolish'? Yes or no, Mr McVay?
>
> With respect to your interpretation of my words, I can only suggest
> that you read them again:
>
> <exact copy>
>
> To be fair, one should also ask how nazihunter got the name and
> address in the first place, shouldn't one?
>
> Yale Edeiken distributed it to a holocaust-history.org mailing list,
> and to a few, including me, outside the list. If you are going to
> condemn nazihunter, as you properly are, then should you not also ask
> what Yale hoped to achieve by distributing the address in the first
> place?
>
> I posted it on Nizkor for about 90 minutes, until I realized, on
> reflection, that it was the wrong thing to do, and deleted it... so,
> in the end, it could have come from anywhere... but it originated with
> someone who should have known better, as he himself had been the
> target of a similar attack.
>
> <copy ends>
>
> If that is what you feel Mr. Edeiken meant to achieve, that is your
> opinion, one I am not prepared to share.
>
I don't know him well enough to know what he intended to achieve, although he
has a very nasty streak in him and I am inclined to fear the worst. I *do*
maintain that he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of judgement.
>
> However, I think it would have been hypocritical of me to remain silent,
> all the while knowing where the information came from, while others were
> being justifiably pilloried for making improper use of it.
>
Agreed. I think you have, again, acted in a commendable and honest manner.
>
> Who is to be blamed more? The person wielding the weapon, or the one
> who provided it? You tell me.
>
I suspect it depends on whether the person providing the weapon did so with
malicious intent. Edeiken *did* have his own name and address published and
it's fairly obvious to most of us who probably did it. Perhaps that's a
mitigating factor.
For the record, I don't intend to drop Mr Edeiken in the soup -- although he
has put himself in rather a delicate position. I *do* intend to tweak his
metaphorical nose mercilessly whenever he pops up, however.
>
> [Posted and emailed]
> --
> The Nizkor Project An Electronic Holocaust Education Resource
> Ken McVay, Director http://www.nizkor.org/~kmcvay
> NetMeeting: Ken McVay ICQ: 7015822
David
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
Tell you what, Steve. Give me the name, address and telephone number of a tester in Lincolnshire whom you've
contacted and consider acceptable, together with the price, and I will consider bearing the cost of the test
myself. Howzat?
David
David E Michael
steve wolk wrote:
Um . . . now what address would that be apart from my home address? Duh!
What's wrong with posting in alt.revisionism?
David
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
(snip)
> > > Why don't you post yours, if you're so happy that other people use
> > > this forum. You always seems so *eager* to have other people post
> > > their addresses in the alt.revisionism, yet strangely reluctance to
> > > reciprocate.
> > >
> > > Besides, Mr. Wolk has already asked for a mailing address to which
> > > certified mail can be sent. If need be, send it to him via email.
> >
> > Indeed, that is all I require. After all, I did not require him to post
> > it in alt.rev. At this point, it seems his commitment to this
> > undertaking is a mile wide and an inch deep.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > >
> > > But don't let that stop you from wiggling, like you are currently
> > > doing with Gord's response to your pontififying in the Himmler
> > > Challenge.
> > >
> > > William
> > > - --
(snip)
> Certified mail is not necessary. Just post in alt.revisionism,
> Steve. Why are you so anxious to get my home address?
>
> David
>
Your home address isn't required. All that is required is 'an
address to which certified mail can be sent.' How do you conduct
business, David? You claim that you negotiate contracts all the
time. Just give him such an address where he can send you certified
mail. If you want, tell him via email, it doesn't have to occur in
a.r.
And, if I make so bold as to speak for Mr. Wolk , I suspect he wants
to get such an address because you've shown what a 'good faith'
negotiator you are in this newsgroup and he doesn't want to repeat
the experience. He wants to conduct negotiations via email and not
in a public Usenet newsgroup where you can wiggle and dodge and
squirm and make rhethorical hay.
He's made that clear, at least twice. You've ignored it and
acted as if you'd never saw him ask for your address, and then you
coyly ask "why are you so anxious to get my home address.'
He never mentioned your 'home' address, David. He only said 'mailing
address.'
But thanks for letting us in on your paranoia, David.
After all, this is really what it's about. You're so paranoid that
you won't share your mailing address with the person you claim
you're willing to negotiate a 'contract' with.
Jeeeeesssh.
William
PS. When are you going to answer Gord? It's been 5 days now. That's
five times longer than you gave Mr. McVay after you'd 'accepted' the
Himmler challenge.
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFk/NyKcKc3OYUhpAQEyZAP/bWkT1Urba/MGgn59bwwZrBRAIwqqMEJ6
xzAJEiSsTQp8Vg/1N3MiOe9zATN2Eq5lapzPJJ6jscGplC3TDsWilYC8zO3m7zAf
Fg/3QqlctQfNPTNmVr8GnjNYfDZwAGSresFPB//4h6cfcrGyXU7l2TPYnTOfGryL
1useGVRzI7Y=
=huWo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David E Michael
Orac wrote:
Hmmm. I think that's a bit unfair. I don't agree with Ken about much but on a couple
of occasions he's done things that have made me think he's basically a decent sort
of chap, unlike some of his co-posters. What does a good man do when he finds
someone on his own side behaving in an evil way? It's a dilemma I've had to face
several times and it's a tough one. Your solution, Dr Gorski, seems to be 'remain
silent' -- put 'your side' above what is right. But is that in the long-term
interest of your cause? Evil, like murder, will often out. Mr McVay has chosen to
speak out against evil on 'his side', even at the cost of causing a fair bit of
trouble for himself. I'd say that deserves praise rather than censure.
With regard to posting email, I think that it is acceptable when it proves *gross*
dishonesty, evil or criminality on the part of someone who is trying to represent
himself as a good guy in Usenet. This is particularly the case when the email in
question is obscene or offensive.
Right . . . now back to opposition mode . . .
David
Warren All-Stars
David E Michael wrote:
I am fed up with your wiggling. When you are ready to accept my terms or bear the cost yourself, let me
know. This is the last time I will tell you this.
Steve
Kenneth McVay OBC
Orac <Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <83bbpm$2jk4$1...@news.tht.net>, kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org (Kenneth
>McVay OBC) wrote:
>>I don't like posting email as a rule, although I confess I have done,
>Then don't.
When it's abusive, it's public. I recognize and understand your
objection.
>You appear to have no problem breaking the rule in this case. Clearly, it must
>not be a particularly binding rule to you.
See above.
>And to what end do you wish to "share" this outburst with us? What does it
I felt the outburst was threatening. When I feel I have been
threatened, I make it known.
>Of course, but you forgot one more question one should ask, to be fair, of
>course. One must also equally ask what *you* hope to achieve by
>publicizing this
>and posting private e-mail to a public newsgroup. I would want to know BOTH
>things. Only then would I try to decide where I stand in the whole situation.
I have already mentioned that - it would have been hypocritical of me
not to make it public, in my opinion.
>>I posted it on Nizkor for about 90 minutes, until I realized, on
>>reflection, that it was the wrong thing to do, and deleted it... so,
>>in the end, it could have come from anywhere... but it originated with
>>someone who should have known better, as he himself had been the
>>target of a similar attack.
>By your own logic, even if you did have a change of heart, one should then also
>equally ask *you* what *you* hoped to accomplish by posting the address to
>Nizkor, shouldn't one? In fact, I just did.
I am uncertain, if the truth were to be told, but I know that I
relished the thought of causing Mr. Bradbury some discomfort. I was
wrong, and had not considered the potential consequences. When I began
to do that, I removed the file.
>>If that is what you feel Mr. Edeiken meant to achieve, that is your
>>opinion, one I am not prepared to share.
>>
>>However, I think it would have been hypocritical of me to remain silent,
>>all the while knowing where the information came from, while others were
>>being justifiably pilloried for making improper use of it.
>
>Who is being "unjustifiably" pilloried for making improper use of this
>information, Ken? I saw no posts "pillorying" anyone other than the anonymous
>little cowardly maggot "Nazihunter" He/she/it deserved each and every
>barb aimed
>his/her way--and more. I aimed a few his/her/its way myself. I admit I might
>have missed posts "pillorying" someone else because sometimes articles take a
>while to propagate to my news server, but I doubt it. So, I ask again: Who is
>being "pilloried" unjustly for being "Nazihunter"?
The issue is not who was being pilloried - please note my use of the
adjective "justifiably," above.
>>Who is to be blamed more? The person wielding the weapon, or the one
>>who provided it? You tell me.
>
>I will. But before that, one could also ask: Who is more culpable, one who
>leaves a weapon in a public site, accessible to anyone, knowing that anyone
>could pick it up and use it, or someone who leaves a weapon in a private club
>among people he/she thinks he/she can trust? If your version of events is true,
>then that's what we're really talking about, isn't it, Ken?
That is a part of it, yes. That is why I have been completely open
about it. I did it, I undid it because it was the wrong thing to do.
>
>Basically, you're glossing over the fact that it is entirely possible that by
>posting Scotty's address to Nizkor's website, even if only for 90 min, YOU were
>the one to provide "Nazihunter" with the weapon. Surely you knew when
>you posted
>it to a public website that it might fall into the wrong hands. At the very
>least, your action shows recklessness of a higher degree than that you accuse
>Yale of. At the worst, it means you wanted the information to be used, which is
>exactly what you seem to be accusing Yale of.
Given the timing of nazihunter's post, that is most unlikely. It is
more likely, though not proven, that "nazihunter" received the address
as a mailing list recipient.
>But back to your question: The person wielding the weapon is more culpable. A
>person given a weapon does not have to pull the trigger and use it. He/she can
>always say no. The person providing the weapon may or may not have intended for
>it to be used and may or may not have been able to predict whether anyone would
>use it and may or may not have intended for the person receiving the weapon to
>pass it on. That person, unless he/she knew that the weapon would be used or
>passed on to someone who would use it, can be accused, at most, only of
>cluelessness and maybe recklessness. The person who uses the weapon is
>ultimately to blame for its use.
I did not intend any harm come to Mr. Bradbury, and, I'd bet, neither
did Mr. Edeiken. But that did not make the weapon any less potentially
dangerous. As to the legal issues you raise, I'm not so sure... folks
who procure weapons for others to use can and are arrested and
charged. That suggests that the law would disagree with you in some
respects, would it not?
David E Michael
Warren All-Stars wrote:
I am ready to accept your challenge. I am not ready to give you my home address, which is the only address at
which I accept mail and sign for it.
David
Warren All-Stars
David E Michael wrote:
One concession. I will accept the signature of your attorney for mail if you will also agree to escrow an
appearance bond of 500 pounds sterling, to be forfeited to the charity of my choice if you fail to appear.
Steve
Steve
Sara Salzman
(Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
>>
>>Basically, you're glossing over the fact that it is entirely possible that by
>>posting Scotty's address to Nizkor's website, even if only for 90 min,
YOU were
>>the one to provide "Nazihunter" with the weapon. Surely you knew when
>>you posted
>>it to a public website that it might fall into the wrong hands. At the very
>>least, your action shows recklessness of a higher degree than that you accuse
>>Yale of. At the worst, it means you wanted the information to be used,
which is
>>exactly what you seem to be accusing Yale of.
>
>Given the timing of nazihunter's post, that is most unlikely. It is
>more likely, though not proven, that "nazihunter" received the address
>as a mailing list recipient.
>
I beg to differ, Ken. You have an e-mail notifier on your site for
additions to the What's New section, don't you?
Doesn't that mean that everyone on YOUR "notification" list knew about it?
Sara
--
"I am an agitator, and an agitator is the center
post in a washing machine that gets the dirt out."
Jim Hightower
Sara Salzman
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Hmmm. I think that's a bit unfair. I don't agree with Ken about much but
on a couple
>of occasions he's done things that have made me think he's basically a
decent sort
>of chap, unlike some of his co-posters. What does a good man do when he finds
>someone on his own side behaving in an evil way? It's a dilemma I've had
to face
>several times and it's a tough one. Your solution, Dr Gorski, seems to be
'remain
>silent' -- put 'your side' above what is right. But is that in the long-term
>interest of your cause? Evil, like murder, will often out. Mr McVay has
chosen to
>speak out against evil on 'his side', even at the cost of causing a fair bit of
>trouble for himself. I'd say that deserves praise rather than censure.
>
Really? And do you agree tha the hundreds of posts giving Mr. Edeiken's
address were "evil" too? Funny... I've never seen your opinion on that.
David E Michael
Warren All-Stars wrote:
Fine, if you agree to pay the attorney.
David
David E Michael
Sara Salzman wrote:
> In article <38594682...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Hmmm. I think that's a bit unfair. I don't agree with Ken about much but
> on a couple
> >of occasions he's done things that have made me think he's basically a
> decent sort
> >of chap, unlike some of his co-posters. What does a good man do when he finds
> >someone on his own side behaving in an evil way? It's a dilemma I've had
> to face
> >several times and it's a tough one. Your solution, Dr Gorski, seems to be
> 'remain
> >silent' -- put 'your side' above what is right. But is that in the long-term
> >interest of your cause? Evil, like murder, will often out. Mr McVay has
> chosen to
> >speak out against evil on 'his side', even at the cost of causing a fair bit of
> >trouble for himself. I'd say that deserves praise rather than censure.
> >
>
> Really? And do you agree tha the hundreds of posts giving Mr. Edeiken's
> address were "evil" too? Funny... I've never seen your opinion on that.
>
> Sara
>
> --
> "I am an agitator, and an agitator is the center
> post in a washing machine that gets the dirt out."
> Jim Hightower
Then you haven't been reading my posts. I have condemned the posting of Edeiken's
address in this very newsgroup several times. Posting of addresses is absolutely not
on -- not least because it can lead to people being hurt or killed. What if a member
of Edeiken's or Bradbury's family receives a parcel bomb and gets killed? Will it
seem such good fun to characters like 'Nazihunter' then?
David
Kenneth McVay OBC
Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>Given the timing of nazihunter's post, that is most unlikely. It is
>>more likely, though not proven, that "nazihunter" received the address
>>as a mailing list recipient.
>I beg to differ, Ken. You have an e-mail notifier on your site for
>additions to the What's New section, don't you?
>
>Doesn't that mean that everyone on YOUR "notification" list knew about it?
The Bradbury file was not added to the "What's New" page, and there is
no notifier on the "Latest Files" page, since it can change from
minute to minute throughout the day. In addition to that, the cgi
script that maintains the filesystem only fires up 7 times per day, at
5 minutes past the hour. The file could have sat there for an hour or
two before it would be listed.
To recap: No notification list.
Warren All-Stars
David E Michael wrote:
I'm sure you would also like me to make your mortgage payments for you. You are a man without shame.
Steve
Orac
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Hmmm. I think that's a bit unfair. I don't agree with Ken about much but on a
>couple of occasions he's done things that have made me think he's basically a
>decent sort of chap, unlike some of his co-posters. What does a good man do
>when he finds someone on his own side behaving in an evil way? It's a dilemma
>I've had to face several times and it's a tough one. Your solution, Dr Gorski,
>seems to be 'remain silent' -- put 'your side' above what is right.
I would remind you that Ken is also on "my side." I hardly held back on him. I
did not "remain silent." You'll also note that I was not flattering of Yale's
behavior either.
>But is
>that in the long-term interest of your cause? Evil, like murder, will often
>out. Mr McVay has chosen to speak out against evil on 'his side', even at the
>cost of causing a fair bit of trouble for himself. I'd say that deserves
>praise rather than censure.
Perhaps, but his self-righteousness in condemning what he saw to be Yale's
transgression annoyed me, given that he is at least as guilty as Yale and
probably more so, *even if his version of events is true.* After all, when he
posted Bradbury's address to Nizkor, he obviously knew that it might be used for
ill. That he thought better of it is to his credit, but what if he had not
thought better of it?
>With regard to posting email, I think that it is acceptable when it proves
>*gross* dishonesty, evil or criminality on the part of someone who is trying
>to represent himself as a good guy in Usenet. This is particularly the case
>when the email in question is obscene or offensive.
I would only agree if the e-mail was repeated or was obviously threatening
physical harm. In any case, the better action would be to report such behavior
to the authorities, not post it to Usenet.
Sara Salzman
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Sara Salzman wrote:
>
>> In article <38594682...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
>> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >Hmmm. I think that's a bit unfair. I don't agree with Ken about much but
>> on a couple
>> >of occasions he's done things that have made me think he's basically a
>> decent sort
>> >of chap, unlike some of his co-posters. What does a good man do when
he finds
>> >someone on his own side behaving in an evil way? It's a dilemma I've had
>> to face
>> >several times and it's a tough one. Your solution, Dr Gorski, seems to be
>> 'remain
>> >silent' -- put 'your side' above what is right. But is that in the long-term
>> >interest of your cause? Evil, like murder, will often out. Mr McVay has
>> chosen to
>> >speak out against evil on 'his side', even at the cost of causing a
fair bit of
>> >trouble for himself. I'd say that deserves praise rather than censure.
>> >
>>
>> Really? And do you agree tha the hundreds of posts giving Mr. Edeiken's
>> address were "evil" too? Funny... I've never seen your opinion on that.
>>
>> Sara
>>
>> --
>> "I am an agitator, and an agitator is the center
>> post in a washing machine that gets the dirt out."
>> Jim Hightower
>
>Then you haven't been reading my posts. I have condemned the posting of
Edeiken's
>address in this very newsgroup several times. Posting of addresses is
absolutely not
>on -- not least because it can lead to people being hurt or killed. What
if a member
>of Edeiken's or Bradbury's family receives a parcel bomb and gets killed?
Will it
>seem such good fun to characters like 'Nazihunter' then?
>
In that case, first I offer an apology to you.
And second, Hell truly HAS frozen over, and there's pork in the treetops :)
I don't know if anyone has noticed this yet, but the ultimate "result" of
Nazihunter may be the forging of common ground between those of us who
disagree the most. Wouldn't THAT be a kick in the ass to Nazihunter?
hey, it's a start....
Orac
McVay OBC) wrote:
>In article <Orac_USA-06A1B4...@news.earthlink.net>, Orac
><Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <83bbpm$2jk4$1...@news.tht.net>, kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org (Kenneth
>>McVay OBC) wrote:
[Snip]
>>>However, I think it would have been hypocritical of me to remain silent, all
>>>the while knowing where the information came from, while others were being
>>>justifiably pilloried for making improper use of it.
>>
>>Who is being "unjustifiably" pilloried for making improper use of this
>>information, Ken? I saw no posts "pillorying" anyone other than the anonymous
>>little cowardly maggot "Nazihunter" He/she/it deserved each and every barb
>>aimed his/her way--and more. I aimed a few his/her/its way myself. I admit I
>>might have missed posts "pillorying" someone else because sometimes articles
>>take a while to propagate to my news server, but I doubt it. So, I ask again:
>>Who is being "pilloried" unjustly for being "Nazihunter"?
>
>The issue is not who was being pilloried - please note my use of the adjective
>"justifiably," above.
And I would say: please note my comment that I saw no posts pillorying anyone
other than the one who richly and justly deserved to be pilloried--the anonymous
coward Nazihunter. In any case, you didn't answer my question: Just who,
specifically, is being "unjustly" pilloried? You? Yale? Who, Ken? As I've said
before, I've seen no posts pillorying anyone other than the one who justly
deserved it--again, Nazihunter.
[Snip]
>>Basically, you're glossing over the fact that it is entirely possible that by
>>posting Scotty's address to Nizkor's website, even if only for 90 min, YOU
>>were the one to provide "Nazihunter" with the weapon. Surely you knew when
>>you posted it to a public website that it might fall into the wrong hands. At
>>the very least, your action shows recklessness of a higher degree than that
>>you accuse Yale of. At the worst, it means you wanted the information to be
>>used, which is exactly what you seem to be accusing Yale of.
>
>Given the timing of nazihunter's post, that is most unlikely. It is more
>likely, though not proven, that "nazihunter" received the address as a mailing
>list recipient.
But, thanks to your action, we'll never know for sure, right?
[Snip]
William Daffer
cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) writes:
> In article <38594682...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Hmmm. I think that's a bit unfair. I don't agree with Ken about much but
> on a couple
> >of occasions he's done things that have made me think he's basically a
> decent sort
> >of chap, unlike some of his co-posters. What does a good man do when he finds
> >someone on his own side behaving in an evil way? It's a dilemma I've had
> to face
> >several times and it's a tough one. Your solution, Dr Gorski, seems to be
> 'remain
> >silent' -- put 'your side' above what is right. But is that in the long-term
> >interest of your cause? Evil, like murder, will often out. Mr McVay has
> chosen to
> >speak out against evil on 'his side', even at the cost of causing a fair bit of
> >trouble for himself. I'd say that deserves praise rather than censure.
> >
>
> Really? And do you agree tha the hundreds of posts giving Mr. Edeiken's
> address were "evil" too? Funny... I've never seen your opinion on that.
>
> Sara
>
To be scrupulously fair, David has objected with some pretty strong
language. He has also done so while leaving the address in, I
believe on two occasions. I know that he objected to a posting of
John Morris' address with a followup that left the address in,
followed, something like 4 minutes later, with another post with the
address cut out. He then called Steve Wolk a liar when Steve pointed
out that he (David) had posted one with the address left in. He
explained at the time that he'd accidentally posted the address,
then sent a cancel and followed-up again with the address taken
out. He seems to believe that cancels propagate faster than the
posts themselves or something. In any case, with the evidence
'staring him in the face,' as it were, he steadfastly refused to
acknowledge that he had, in fact, posted a followup with Johm
Morris' left address in.
As with all things involving David Michael, his record is, at best,
ambiguous.
William
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFlw2SKcKc3OYUhpAQHkhgP9Eeo7JM1Mwmvs0MPmls70+YgXk8t8Gyhb
3j5C/KqpDcnBl44/eehIVj4OfGtGxnMB/+rI8yPXndWz1bP8nz7SAoAHCSLEO6ta
1apAEGJU6bpDyWFIBmK81SD3exu0jIUu/xpV9OYb6ZwBFmUGpeX/Y75EWzo6jeHF
azZb6O+ORtE=
=N0g0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
(snip)
> > > Certified mail is not necessary. Just post in alt.revisionism, Steve. Why are you so anxious to get my
> > > home address?
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Nothing was said about your home address. I want an address where you
> > personally must sign for certified mail.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Um . . . now what address would that be apart from my home address? Duh!
>
> What's wrong with posting in alt.revisionism?
>
> David
>
A business address comes to mind. Here in the states, if you are sent a
certified mail and you aren't there, they leave you a little message
and you have to go to the post office and sign for it. That
signature is proof that you received the message.
So, for the purposes of this drill, it could be a post office box, I
imagine.
William
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFlx5yKcKc3OYUhpAQFOzwP9HJcBHNTTI/inX1uMchse3AjK/pdSkuo3
7zSl+sD+Jj7hij3kNQNgDpqXQEeqAnSWH4hYwXL5iKGoof7jZbdFuh+XprBjMNRv
4NvDv+394vfmkmIaIAQF7DC4iFdB2EZatjkoe+cLYdhjm2M0Mlcv3/s1rz0LAQcn
cAF3LZVoKxw=
=dOLg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Daffer
It is becoming clearer by the day that David Michael will conduct no
business by post. There are two ongoing challenges concerning him,
Steve Wolk's challenge to have David Michael take a lie detector
test (the question being "are you an antisemite?") and Gord McFee's
renewal of the Himmler Challenge on David Michael's invitation. In
both there have been requests made for addresses to which registered
mail sent. In the case of the Wolk Challenge, this request has been
met with responses ranging from stonewalling to outright
rejection. David Michael has yet to respond to Mr. McFee in any
manner, despite repeated 'promptings.'
David Michael's stated reason for his demurral in this matter is
that he doesn't want to give out his home address. Fine! No one
really asked for his home address, only one where 'registered mail'
can be sent, so it is a 'red herring' to bring it up, but we can let
that pass for the nonce. Now, in the U.S., one may send registered
mail to a post box. I know; I called and asked. If one isn't at the
address, and one isn't with a PO box, a note is left indicating that
a certified letter is awaiting you at the Post Office. One then goes
there and signs for it. The letter is then considered to have been
'delivered.' It can be set up so that a return reciept is sent back,
so that the sender is notified of the delivery.
Now, I'm willing to bet that this is true in GB too, so here's an
out for David Michael, he can set up a PO box and have certified
mail sent there.
Or, he can have it sent to his solicitors, surely he can have no
worries about giving their address out.
Except that he's never given anyone his solicitor's name or address,
either.
Which raises the following question. Just how serious can one be
about a challenge that will obviously require the intervention of a
lawyer if one isn't willing to divulge even the name of that lawyer?
William
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOFl6OiKcKc3OYUhpAQGKFwP/RJezf31LWRpkN0TriP9cXxKiRPzgL09C
xLLCMedTmmKYIydxo9ZBAGtcaEMAfVqMkaN9s4bYNBCc932n/YOsxB/JsC+n8/ax
8NL2dayce3jsqdNW55Vm+RbEq12fUIkHTehDrS6JY1c8qJZZzuTSQt5FjvQKnyMI
5kjvYxu2k4I=
=/u+V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Warren All-Stars
William Daffer wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> It is becoming clearer by the day that David Michael will conduct no
> business by post. There are two ongoing challenges concerning him,
> Steve Wolk's challenge to have David Michael take a lie detector
> test (the question being "are you an antisemite?") and Gord McFee's
> renewal of the Himmler Challenge on David Michael's invitation. In
> both there have been requests made for addresses to which registered
> mail sent. In the case of the Wolk Challenge, this request has been
> met with responses ranging from stonewalling to outright
> rejection. David Michael has yet to respond to Mr. McFee in any
> manner, despite repeated 'promptings.'
>
> David Michael's stated reason for his demurral in this matter is
> that he doesn't want to give out his home address. Fine! No one
> really asked for his home address, only one where 'registered mail'
> can be sent, so it is a 'red herring' to bring it up, but we can let
> that pass for the nonce. Now, in the U.S., one may send registered
> mail to a post box. I know; I called and asked. If one isn't at the
> address, and one isn't with a PO box, a note is left indicating that
> a certified letter is awaiting you at the Post Office. One then goes
> there and signs for it. The letter is then considered to have been
> 'delivered.' It can be set up so that a return reciept is sent back,
> so that the sender is notified of the delivery.
>
> Now, I'm willing to bet that this is true in GB too, so here's an
> out for David Michael, he can set up a PO box and have certified
> mail sent there.
This is OK by me.
Steve
>
>
> Or, he can have it sent to his solicitors, surely he can have no
> worries about giving their address out.
>
> Except that he's never given anyone his solicitor's name or address,
> either.
>
> Which raises the following question. Just how serious can one be
> about a challenge that will obviously require the intervention of a
> lawyer if one isn't willing to divulge even the name of that lawyer?
>
> William
> - --
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
> Groucho Marx.
> Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
>
Joseph M. Shair
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:385816F5...@btinternet.com...
>
>
> Orac wrote:
>
> > In article <38570B78...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Orac wrote:
> >
> > >> You don't appear to be denying that the quote by you about "our side"
being
> > >> tried by "your side" at Nuremberg were your words.
> > >
> > >I've said I was on the side of the Axis forces because they were the
lesser of
> > >the two evils -- so were the Japanese and the Italians, neither of whom
could
> > >be described as 'Nazis'. For me the ideal outcome would have been a
> > >Hitler--Churchill alliance against Stalin. It would have saved a lot of
lives
> > >and led to a better world.
> >
> > An alliance with Hitler? You have a strange idea of what's evil.
> >
>
> Far less evil than an alliance with Stalin, surely.
>
> >
> > >> You don't appear to be denying that you asserted that the Allies
wanted the
> > >> "blood of innocent men" at Nuremberg.
> > >
> > >Do you deny it?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> How do you account for the hanging of Streicher then?
>
<hack/>
Easily. He wasn't an innocent man. He was guilty of (at least)
being an accessory before the fact in multiple murders.
However, even on the laughable assumption that he were innocent,
how would that prove that the Allies "wanted the 'blood of innocent
men'"? It would only show a single case that *might* have been
in error. This is a far way from claiming to know the minds and
intentions of the Allies as a whole. Your claims on this matter
are as specious as your claims of the relative "truth" demonstrated
by you and your adversaries in other threads.
Joe Shair
The enemy is demagoguery. And you, sir, are a demagogue.
steve wolk
Even better, I'll let you pick the tester since I don't have a
Lincolnshire phonebook handy. Once you have given me the name, address
and phone number, I'll arrange for legal representation for myself and
supply the question. Howzat?
Steve
Sara Salzman
<re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>
>>In article <38594682...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
>><david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Hmmm. I think that's a bit unfair. I don't agree with Ken about much but
>>on a couple
>>>of occasions he's done things that have made me think he's basically a
>>decent sort
>>>of chap, unlike some of his co-posters. What does a good man do when he finds
>>>someone on his own side behaving in an evil way? It's a dilemma I've had
>>to face
>>>several times and it's a tough one. Your solution, Dr Gorski, seems to be
>>'remain
>>>silent' -- put 'your side' above what is right. But is that in the long-term
>>>interest of your cause? Evil, like murder, will often out. Mr McVay has
>>chosen to
>>>speak out against evil on 'his side', even at the cost of causing a
fair bit of
>>>trouble for himself. I'd say that deserves praise rather than censure.
>>>
>>
>>Really? And do you agree tha the hundreds of posts giving Mr. Edeiken's
>>address were "evil" too? Funny... I've never seen your opinion on that.
>
>I think that Yale suffered a lot of duress when his details were
>posted, and I think it was wrong that they were. I think it wrong to
>give Tavish's details to a list, (though I can understand the pressure
>that may have led him to do so) - but I also think it was wrong for
>Ken McV to post Yale's email publically. However, I give credit to K
>McV for revealing the way he put Tavish stuff on Nizkor.
>
>I'm confused now. Where does that leave me Mrs T?
I think you're in agreement with most of the rest of us -- a position we
don't often find ourselves in.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <Orac_USA-52794D...@news.earthlink.net> in
alt.revisionism, on Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:10:41 -0500, Orac
<Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <83bh7c$2qmt$1...@news.tht.net>, kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org
>(Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
>>In article <Orac_USA-06A1B4...@news.earthlink.net>,
>>Orac <Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>Basically, you're glossing over the fact that it is entirely
>>possible that by
>>>posting Scotty's address to Nizkor's website, even if only for 90
>>>min, YOU were the one to provide "Nazihunter" with the weapon.
>>>Surely you knew when you posted it to a public website that it
>>>might fall into the wrong hands. At the very least, your action
>>>shows recklessness of a higher degree than that you accuse Yale
>>>of. At the worst, it means you wanted the information to be used,
>>>which is exactly what you seem to be accusing Yale of.
>>Given the timing of nazihunter's post, that is most unlikely. It is
>>more likely, though not proven, that "nazihunter" received the
>>address as a mailing list recipient.
>But, thanks to your action, we'll never know for sure, right?
Oh, I don't know. While I am not a subscriber to the "anti-nazi"
list in question, my aid was solicited in determining whether
Nazihunter could have got the address from that list. I was sent a
copy of the recipient's list. It is a closed list; it is a secure
list; and it is a very short list.
Nazihunter is not one of the recipients. Of that I am absolutely
certain. For the names I do not know on that list, I have very good
reasons for discounting any connection to Nazihunter. For the names
I do recognize, I am relatively certain that they understood the
consequences for Yale's lawsuit of publishing, or allowing to be
published, the information they received in their mailings.
Ken McVay has no good reason for concluding that Nazihunter got his
information from that list.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOFncZpQgvG272fn9EQIMvgCbBzIC22D5LvkGJnVeUeS2/nDR46UAoNLR
VzTSvEASOOCaTHNrzeLoZPNG
=qd+7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Orac
>cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>>Really? And do you agree tha the hundreds of posts giving Mr. Edeiken's
>>address were "evil" too? Funny... I've never seen your opinion on that.
>
>I think that Yale suffered a lot of duress when his details were posted, and I
>think it was wrong that they were. I think it wrong to give Tavish's details
>to a list, (though I can understand the pressure that may have led him to do
>so) - but I also think it was wrong for Ken McV to post Yale's email
>publically. However, I give credit to K McV for revealing the way he put
>Tavish stuff on Nizkor.
I give some credit to Ken for that, but, to be honest, I also have to take away
that same credit because of his self-righteousness and rather transparent
attempt to shift the blame solely to Yale. Personally, I think there's plenty of
blame to go around. In retrospect, IMHO, both Yale and Ken showed incredibly
poor judgment, and I hope they both learned a lesson from this whole affair. I
don't think either of them meant to threaten Tavish, but clearly that was the
end result. Because both showed such poor judgment, I don't think we'll ever
know for sure how the Tavish's address got out and was posted by "Nazihunter"
unless "Nazihunter's" identity is finally established.
David E Michael
Orac wrote:
> In article <J7pZOIj+KpQFqo...@4ax.com>, Fergus McClelland
> <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>
> >cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>
> >>Really? And do you agree tha the hundreds of posts giving Mr. Edeiken's
> >>address were "evil" too? Funny... I've never seen your opinion on that.
> >
> >I think that Yale suffered a lot of duress when his details were posted, and I
> >think it was wrong that they were. I think it wrong to give Tavish's details
> >to a list, (though I can understand the pressure that may have led him to do
> >so) - but I also think it was wrong for Ken McV to post Yale's email
> >publically. However, I give credit to K McV for revealing the way he put
> >Tavish stuff on Nizkor.
>
> I give some credit to Ken for that, but, to be honest, I also have to take away
> that same credit because of his self-righteousness and rather transparent
> attempt to shift the blame solely to Yale. Personally, I think there's plenty of
> blame to go around. In retrospect, IMHO, both Yale and Ken showed incredibly
> poor judgment, and I hope they both learned a lesson from this whole affair. I
> don't think either of them meant to threaten Tavish, but clearly that was the
> end result. Because both showed such poor judgment, I don't think we'll ever
> know for sure how the Tavish's address got out and was posted by "Nazihunter"
> unless "Nazihunter's" identity is finally established.
>
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
> a.k.a. |
> David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
> | inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
I have a quote for around 500 Canadian dollars from a Canadian private detective who
thinks he can get conclusive evidence of the identity of 'Nazihunter' based on the
information we already had. This could then be circulated to his employers and
victims so that he will get the sort of hassle he hopes to cause for others.
Frankly, I actually have better things to spend money on than this, but I must say
that I'm getting tempted.
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <385A552E...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 17
Dec 1999 15:22:22 +0000, David E Michael
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Orac wrote:
[snip]
>> I give some credit to Ken for that, but, to be honest, I also have
>> to take away that same credit because of his self-righteousness
>> and rather transparent attempt to shift the blame solely to Yale.
>> Personally, I think there's plenty of blame to go around. In
>> retrospect, IMHO, both Yale and Ken showed incredibly poor
>> judgment, and I hope they both learned a lesson from this whole
>> affair. I don't think either of them meant to threaten Tavish, but
>> clearly that was the end result. Because both showed such poor
>> judgment, I don't think we'll ever know for sure how the Tavish's
>> address got out and was posted by "Nazihunter" unless
>> "Nazihunter's" identity is finally established.
>I have a quote for around 500 Canadian dollars from a Canadian
>private detective who thinks he can get conclusive evidence of the
>identity of 'Nazihunter' based on the information we already had.
The information you had is extremely limited. Your guesses about his
identity were about as wrong as could be imagined. But so were mine,
so don't feel too bad.
$500 CDN is also way more than you need to spend.
> This could then be circulated to his employers and
>victims so that he will get the sort of hassle he hopes to cause for
>others.
Which would make you just like him. Now there's a moral equivalence
I can live with.
>Frankly, I actually have better things to spend money on than this,
>but I must say that I'm getting tempted.
You're all mouth.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOFqshZQgvG272fn9EQKrTgCglvo+awy1vxsmtnWPQd+dux5lSJ0AmQHo
3PHYlDl751GsTmWlCUL9h2Ft
=U7gB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David E Michael
John Morris wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <385A552E...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 17
> Dec 1999 15:22:22 +0000, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Orac wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I give some credit to Ken for that, but, to be honest, I also have
> >> to take away that same credit because of his self-righteousness
> >> and rather transparent attempt to shift the blame solely to Yale.
> >> Personally, I think there's plenty of blame to go around. In
> >> retrospect, IMHO, both Yale and Ken showed incredibly poor
> >> judgment, and I hope they both learned a lesson from this whole
> >> affair. I don't think either of them meant to threaten Tavish, but
> >> clearly that was the end result. Because both showed such poor
> >> judgment, I don't think we'll ever know for sure how the Tavish's
> >> address got out and was posted by "Nazihunter" unless
> >> "Nazihunter's" identity is finally established.
>
> >I have a quote for around 500 Canadian dollars from a Canadian
> >private detective who thinks he can get conclusive evidence of the
> >identity of 'Nazihunter' based on the information we already had.
>
> The information you had is extremely limited.
With respect, you have no way of knowing what information I have.
> Your guesses about his
> identity were about as wrong as could be imagined. But so were mine,
> so don't feel too bad.
>
And how might you know that?
>
> $500 CDN is also way more than you need to spend.
>
It would depend on the amount of work needed.
>
> > This could then be circulated to his employers and
> >victims so that he will get the sort of hassle he hopes to cause for
> >others.
>
> Which would make you just like him.
No. I do not commit criminal offences, nor do I post the names and
addresses of people with whom I happen to disagree very strongly. But
truth was never your strong point.
> Now there's a moral equivalence
> I can live with.
>
> >Frankly, I actually have better things to spend money on than this,
> >but I must say that I'm getting tempted.
>
> You're all mouth.
>
Says a man who spends his entire life leading a virtual existence on the
Internet . . .
>
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOFqshZQgvG272fn9EQKrTgCglvo+awy1vxsmtnWPQd+dux5lSJ0AmQHo
> 3PHYlDl751GsTmWlCUL9h2Ft
> =U7gB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <385ADE7F...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Sat, 18
Dec 1999 01:08:15 +0000, David E Michael
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>John Morris wrote:
>> In <385A552E...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri,
>> 17 Dec 1999 15:22:22 +0000, David E Michael
>> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >Orac wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >> I give some credit to Ken for that, but, to be honest, I also
>> >> have to take away that same credit because of his
>> >> self-righteousness and rather transparent attempt to shift the
>> >> blame solely to Yale. Personally, I think there's plenty of
>> >> blame to go around. In retrospect, IMHO, both Yale and Ken
>> >> showed incredibly poor judgment, and I hope they both learned a
>> >> lesson from this whole affair. I don't think either of them
>> >> meant to threaten Tavish, but clearly that was the end result.
>> >> Because both showed such poor judgment, I don't think we'll
>> >> ever know for sure how the Tavish's address got out and was
>> >> posted by "Nazihunter" unless
>> >> "Nazihunter's" identity is finally established.
>> >I have a quote for around 500 Canadian dollars from a Canadian
>> >private detective who thinks he can get conclusive evidence of
>> >the identity of 'Nazihunter' based on the information we already
>> >had.
>> The information you had is extremely limited.
>With respect, you have no way of knowing what information I have.
With no respect whatever, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you
have only the first clue.
>> Your guesses about his
>> identity were about as wrong as could be imagined. But so were
>> mine, so don't feel too bad.
>And how might you know that?
I have resources that you don't.
And it helps a hell of a lot not to be a Nazi apologist.
>> $500 CDN is also way more than you need to spend.
>It would depend on the amount of work needed.
$7.95 US should do it. Maybe as high as $39.95 US.
Whoever told you $500 CDN probably put you on hold and said, "Whoa!
We've got a live one!"
>> > This could then be circulated to his employers and
>> >victims so that he will get the sort of hassle he hopes to cause
>> >for others.
>> Which would make you just like him.
>No.
Yes.
> I do not commit criminal offences, nor do I post the names and
>addresses of people with whom I happen to disagree very strongly.
But you are suggesting that you would. Hence, my use of the future
conditional tense.
> But
>truth was never your strong point.
Thinking has never been your strong point.
>> Now there's a moral equivalence
>> I can live with.
>> >Frankly, I actually have better things to spend money on than
>> >this, but I must say that I'm getting tempted.
>> You're all mouth.
>Says a man who spends his entire life leading a virtual existence on
>the Internet . . .
Yeah, while you "were there" in Bophuthatswana. LOL!
- - --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOFrvUZQgvG272fn9EQKupACeMPABqlJ0P+O/Hc3iSN92RFV7iLMAoLrb
ndO9wrfeVpCqF7JH0wuwhBI0
=EIP3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David E Michael
John Morris wrote:
At least I do have a clue.
>
> >> Your guesses about his
> >> identity were about as wrong as could be imagined. But so were
> >> mine, so don't feel too bad.
>
> >And how might you know that?
>
> I have resources that you don't.
>
A brain is evidently not one of them.
>
> And it helps a hell of a lot not to be a Nazi apologist.
>
And to associate with criminals.
>
> >> $500 CDN is also way more than you need to spend.
>
> >It would depend on the amount of work needed.
>
> $7.95 US should do it. Maybe as high as $39.95 US.
>
> Whoever told you $500 CDN probably put you on hold and said, "Whoa!
> We've got a live one!"
>
It doesn't seem an unreasonable amount. It depends what you want to do.
>
> >> > This could then be circulated to his employers and
> >> >victims so that he will get the sort of hassle he hopes to cause
> >> >for others.
>
> >> Which would make you just like him.
>
> >No.
>
> Yes.
>
No.
>
> > I do not commit criminal offences, nor do I post the names and
> >addresses of people with whom I happen to disagree very strongly.
>
> But you are suggesting that you would. Hence, my use of the future
> conditional tense.
>
What would be criminal about passing information to an employer about the
criminal acts of an employee? What would be criminal about passing
information to the victims of crime information that would enable them and
the police to apprehend the perpetrator?
>
> > But
> >truth was never your strong point.
>
> Thinking has never been your strong point.
This from someone who shows a fundamental inability to criticize any
orthodox view of the Second World War.
>
> >> Now there's a moral equivalence
> >> I can live with.
>
> >> >Frankly, I actually have better things to spend money on than
> >> >this, but I must say that I'm getting tempted.
>
> >> You're all mouth.
>
> >Says a man who spends his entire life leading a virtual existence on
> >the Internet . . .
>
> Yeah, while you "were there" in Bophuthatswana. LOL!
>
With respect, you have no way of knowing where I have been nor what I have
been doing. And LOL back.
>
> - - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOFrvUZQgvG272fn9EQKupACeMPABqlJ0P+O/Hc3iSN92RFV7iLMAoLrb
> ndO9wrfeVpCqF7JH0wuwhBI0
> =EIP3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <385B02EE...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Sat, 18
Dec 1999 03:43:42 +0000, David E Michael
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>John Morris wrote:
>> In <385ADE7F...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Sat,
>> 18 Dec 1999 01:08:15 +0000, David E Michael
>> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> >> >I have a quote for around 500 Canadian dollars from a Canadian
>> >> >private detective who thinks he can get conclusive evidence of
>> >> >the identity of 'Nazihunter' based on the information we
>> >> >already had.
>> >> The information you had is extremely limited.
>> >With respect, you have no way of knowing what information I have.
>> With no respect whatever, you have repeatedly demonstrated that
>> you have only the first clue.
>At least I do have a clue.
I'll grant you that you have a clue. Too bad you didn't know what to
do with it.
>> >> Your guesses about his
>> >> identity were about as wrong as could be imagined. But so were
>> >> mine, so don't feel too bad.
>> >And how might you know that?
>> I have resources that you don't.
>A brain is evidently not one of them.
But I know, and you don't.
>> And it helps a hell of a lot not to be a Nazi apologist.
>And to associate with criminals.
What criminals do I associate with?
Oh, I see. You switched on the Random Allegation Generator.
>> >> $500 CDN is also way more than you need to spend.
>> >It would depend on the amount of work needed.
>> $7.95 US should do it. Maybe as high as $39.95 US.
>> Whoever told you $500 CDN probably put you on hold and said,
>> "Whoa! We've got a live one!"
>It doesn't seem an unreasonable amount. It depends what you want to
>do.
So what do you want to do? Hire a hit man?
500 bucks to get a name? I have a bridge for sale if you're
interested in an investment opportunity.
>> >> > This could then be circulated to his employers and
>> >> >victims so that he will get the sort of hassle he hopes to
>> >> >cause for others.
>> >> Which would make you just like him.
>> >No.
>> Yes.
>No.
Yes. You are advocating harassment and invasion of privacy. That's
exactly what Nazihunter does.
>> > I do not commit criminal offences, nor do I post the names and
>> >addresses of people with whom I happen to disagree very strongly.
>> But you are suggesting that you would. Hence, my use of the
>> future conditional tense.
>What would be criminal about passing information to an employer
>about the criminal acts of an employee?
It's the responsibility of the police, not vigilantes like you. At
the very least it would be an invasion of privacy and harassment
identical to Nazihunter's.
> What would be criminal about passing
>information to the victims of crime information that would enable
>them and the police to apprehend the perpetrator?
Pass the information on to the police, thug.
>> > But
>> >truth was never your strong point.
>> Thinking has never been your strong point.
>This from someone who shows a fundamental inability to criticize any
>orthodox view of the Second World War.
Grow up, David.
>> >> Now there's a moral equivalence
>> >> I can live with.
>> >> >Frankly, I actually have better things to spend money on than
>> >> >this, but I must say that I'm getting tempted.
>> >> You're all mouth.
>> >Says a man who spends his entire life leading a virtual existence
>> >on the Internet . . .
>> Yeah, while you "were there" in Bophuthatswana. LOL!
>With respect, you have no way of knowing where I have been nor what
>I have been doing. And LOL back.
You mean you were lying when you said to Richard Phillips,
Now there speaks indeed the voice of lunacy. But let's
answer the points anyway. I was out there fighting the Reds
in South Africa when I was needed, Mr P. Where were you then?
When the AWB stormed Bophuthatswana to try to stop Mandela's
henchmen from taking over there, I wasn't sitting on the other
side of the ocean fighting other white nationalists -- I was
right there helping them. Where were you? I left my country
to fight against communism. Have you ever done that? Or has
the only fighting you've ever done consisted of sniping
against white nationalists from the comfort of your armchair,
and indulging in the divisiveness that has prevented us from
making any impact anywhere for the past half century?
-- http://x42.deja.com/=fg/getdoc.xp?AN=407071391
So were you lying?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOFsVspQgvG272fn9EQJXxwCg189F48/DkVt6EwipwlrkoZmfS2sAnRdL
DP5s3NqiKX04tR0Gm1rZtU/q
=LqqA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David E Michael
John Morris wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <385B02EE...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Sat, 18
> Dec 1999 03:43:42 +0000, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >John Morris wrote:
>
> >> In <385ADE7F...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Sat,
> >> 18 Dec 1999 01:08:15 +0000, David E Michael
> >> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >> >I have a quote for around 500 Canadian dollars from a Canadian
> >> >> >private detective who thinks he can get conclusive evidence of
> >> >> >the identity of 'Nazihunter' based on the information we
> >> >> >already had.
>
> >> >> The information you had is extremely limited.
>
> >> >With respect, you have no way of knowing what information I have.
>
> >> With no respect whatever, you have repeatedly demonstrated that
> >> you have only the first clue.
>
> >At least I do have a clue.
>
> I'll grant you that you have a clue. Too bad you didn't know what to
> do with it.
>
Sit on it until provoked into action.
>
> >> >> Your guesses about his
> >> >> identity were about as wrong as could be imagined. But so were
> >> >> mine, so don't feel too bad.
>
> >> >And how might you know that?
>
> >> I have resources that you don't.
>
> >A brain is evidently not one of them.
>
> But I know, and you don't.
>
How do you know that you know and that I don't know? And what is it that
you know I don't know anyway?
>
> >> And it helps a hell of a lot not to be a Nazi apologist.
>
> >And to associate with criminals.
>
> What criminals do I associate with?
>
The professor, it seems.
>
> Oh, I see. You switched on the Random Allegation Generator.
>
> >> >> $500 CDN is also way more than you need to spend.
>
> >> >It would depend on the amount of work needed.
>
> >> $7.95 US should do it. Maybe as high as $39.95 US.
>
> >> Whoever told you $500 CDN probably put you on hold and said,
> >> "Whoa! We've got a live one!"
>
> >It doesn't seem an unreasonable amount. It depends what you want to
> >do.
>
> So what do you want to do? Hire a hit man?
>
> 500 bucks to get a name? I have a bridge for sale if you're
> interested in an investment opportunity.
>
More than a name. Evidence of guilt that could cost him his job.
>
> >> >> > This could then be circulated to his employers and
> >> >> >victims so that he will get the sort of hassle he hopes to
> >> >> >cause for others.
>
> >> >> Which would make you just like him.
>
> >> >No.
>
> >> Yes.
>
> >No.
>
> Yes. You are advocating harassment and invasion of privacy. That's
> exactly what Nazihunter does.
>
I can't believe I am reading this. Do you believe that people have a right
to 'privacy' when they are carrying out criminal acts? Do you believe that
exposing a criminal to his employers, victims and the police is
'harassment'
>
> >> > I do not commit criminal offences, nor do I post the names and
> >> >addresses of people with whom I happen to disagree very strongly.
>
> >> But you are suggesting that you would. Hence, my use of the
> >> future conditional tense.
>
> >What would be criminal about passing information to an employer
> >about the criminal acts of an employee?
>
> It's the responsibility of the police, not vigilantes like you.
I am not a Canadian citizen and my understanding is that the victims would
have to ask the police to take action, not me. It therefore makes sense to
send information to victims, would you not agree?
> At
> the very least it would be an invasion of privacy and harassment
> identical to Nazihunter's.
>
I do not accept that apprehending criminals is an 'invasion of privacy',
nor do I accept that nabbing them is 'harrassment'. Were the police
invading Mr Dahmer's privacy when they stopped him from eating people and
dragged him off to prison?
>
> > What would be criminal about passing
> >information to the victims of crime information that would enable
> >them and the police to apprehend the perpetrator?
>
> Pass the information on to the police, thug.
>
Two points.
First, the British police would not be interested. I gather that the
Canadian police would only be interested if a complaint were made by one
of the victims. I am not, as yet, one of the victims.
Second, if you have the information and you believe that it can be passed
on to the police by a non victim, why have you not passed it on to the
police? Could it be that you WANT the names and addresses of revisionists
to be posted so that they can be harassed into silence? Certainly, you've
pulled no punches in posting personal details of revisionists yourself in
the past.
>
> >> > But
> >> >truth was never your strong point.
>
> >> Thinking has never been your strong point.
>
> >This from someone who shows a fundamental inability to criticize any
> >orthodox view of the Second World War.
>
> Grow up, David.
>
Translation: 'ah, you've got me there.'
Nope.
>
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOFsVspQgvG272fn9EQJXxwCg189F48/DkVt6EwipwlrkoZmfS2sAnRdL
> DP5s3NqiKX04tR0Gm1rZtU/q
> =LqqA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David
Yale F. Edeiken
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:385942F9...@btinternet.com...
> Kenneth McVay OBC wrote:
> > He includes a UseNet article (see References, above) in which David
> > Michaels apparently said (the article has not arrived on my server
> > yet):
> > Since you have just been roundly rapped over the knuckles by your
'boss',
> > Mr McVay, for apparently conspiring to incite violence against a poster
> > in this newsgroup, I think that perhaps you should keep a low profile
> > lest the details of your sordid behaviour find their way to your
> > superiors in Pennsylvania.
> > I am not now, nor have I ever been, Mr. Edeiken's boss.
> Ah, so you *didn't* appoint him to represent Nizkor and/or yourself in the
> Himmler challenge? It was all lies? Yes or no, Mr McVay?
Stop playing your lying games Lord Haw Haw. I am a lawyer retained to
reperesent a client. If you beleive that a cleint is a lawyer's "boss" then
it is clear why you produced none to represent you. They would not do so
under those conditions.
> > If that is what you feel Mr. Edeiken meant to achieve, that is your
> > opinion, one I am not prepared to share.
> I don't know him well enough to know what he intended to achieve, although
he
> has a very nasty streak in him
When I am confronted with nasty lying bastards like you, I --and any
normal person -- should be nasty.
>and I am inclined to fear the worst. I *do*
> maintain that he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of judgement.
Apaprently you believe that victims of a criminal should not be
ionformed of the identity of that criminal. Since you apparently gave your
whole-hearted support to his campaign, that is expected.
> For the record, I don't intend to drop Mr Edeiken in the soup -- although
he
> has put himself in rather a delicate position.
By informing vicitims of the name of the criminal?
Fuck you.
> I *do* intend to tweak his
> metaphorical nose mercilessly whenever he pops up, however.
Of course, that is because you are lying cocksucker with no concept of
morality, personal honor or integrity who gave his active support to a
campaign of criminal harassment. How typical of the violent thugs Lord Haw
Haw has chosen as his allies.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/