Reconstructionism and Holocaust Denial!!

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99

to

"Despite the ostensible compassion of this last phrase, these
passages comprise a striking addition to the canons of` Nazi apology.
The addition may be termed Holocaust reconstructionism: Jews were
wrongfully killed by Nazis; the number of victims was vastly inflated
to shock a desensitized modern world; the Nazis were therein victims
of false witness; false witness is punishable by execution. One may
deduce from this twisted scheme that those who refute Holocaust
"revisionism" and its false calculations deserve death."

This was sent to me and it concerns this Rushdoony business. I'll tell
you folks, this is pretty hateful when such distortions of history
become a part of a program.

It's bad enough when we have people like the IHR, Zuendel, Greg Raven,
David Irving, and others playing distortion games with a Nazi genocide
that involves not just Jews. I find it amusing when these people ONLY
go after the Jews. It tells me a lot. There were 12 million innocents
murdered in the Holocaust. Around 6 million were Jews. The other six
million were children who had various undesirable characteristics the
Nazis didn't want to be passed on genetically. I can't list them all
here. GRoups other than Jews were:

Retarded
Insane
Seriously Ill
Genetically "inferior"
Polish Priests
7th Day Adventists
Homosexuals
Old persons

The early programs were called T4. They gassed people on German soil
in hospitals. The outrage was so great that the Nazis moved their
killing underground and into occupied areas. That's why places like
Auschwitz came about. There 1.3 million human beings were murdered and
it is calculated that about 900,000+ were gassed in the famous gas
chambers.

No one is inflating anything. The numbers come from the Nazis
themselves in many cases. In the case of Auschwitz the numbers came
from Hoess, the kommandant of that camp.

Stay away from groups and people like this. They have nothing to
teach.

Sinti and Roma - Gypsies

Mike Curtis

Please visit:

Write to time...@flash.net for the Rat Pack LIVE
Show at the 500 Club in Atlantic City in 1962. A 4am
morning show! $19.95 Compact Disc called RAT PACK UNCENSORED

http://www.jay-mar.com/stores.html
http://www.abebooks.com
http://www.bibliofind.com

watwinc

unread,

Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99

to

Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:TPf5N7MfGCS=ADONFSsw...@4ax.com...

> "Despite the ostensible compassion of this last phrase, these
> passages comprise a striking addition to the canons of` Nazi apology.
> The addition may be termed Holocaust reconstructionism: Jews were
> wrongfully killed by Nazis; the number of victims was vastly inflated
> to shock a desensitized modern world; the Nazis were therein victims
> of false witness; false witness is punishable by execution. One may
> deduce from this twisted scheme that those who refute Holocaust
> "revisionism" and its false calculations deserve death."
>
> This was sent to me and it concerns this Rushdoony business. I'll tell
> you folks, this is pretty hateful when such distortions of history
> become a part of a program.

Having lived in Germany for over 20 years I'm very concerned about this sort
of thing. Where does this quote come from, please? How does it tie in with
the Reconstructionists? The quote needs context, at least a reference to
what the quote itself is quoting.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99

to

"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>:|Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message
>:|news:TPf5N7MfGCS=ADONFSsw...@4ax.com...

>:|> "Despite the ostensible compassion of this last phrase, these
>:|> passages comprise a striking addition to the canons of` Nazi apology.
>:|> The addition may be termed Holocaust reconstructionism: Jews were
>:|> wrongfully killed by Nazis; the number of victims was vastly inflated
>:|> to shock a desensitized modern world; the Nazis were therein victims
>:|> of false witness; false witness is punishable by execution. One may
>:|> deduce from this twisted scheme that those who refute Holocaust
>:|> "revisionism" and its false calculations deserve death."
>:|>
>:|> This was sent to me and it concerns this Rushdoony business. I'll tell
>:|> you folks, this is pretty hateful when such distortions of history
>:|> become a part of a program.
>:|

>:|Having lived in Germany for over 20 years I'm very concerned about this sort
>:|of thing. Where does this quote come from, please? How does it tie in with
>:|the Reconstructionists? The quote needs context, at least a reference to
>:|what the quote itself is quoting.

What Mike quoted from is the following:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
8. RECONSTRUCTIONISTS

Reconstructionism in its broadest sense describes the rebuilding by
Christians of' every aspect of` Western civilization according to biblical
strictures, beginning in the United States. It is founded on the belief
that God's laws, as described in the Bible, pertain to all people
throughout history and comprise the only legitimate basis for culture.
According to their literature and statements, reconstructionists
would raze most of the structures of American life; a streamlined society
would be rebuilt according to the Mosaic code, which is considered an exact
blueprint for social order. This effort to remake America as ancient Israel
entails the abolition not merely of` the federal government and public
education, but also, as sociologist Anson Shupe has written in The Wall
Street Journal, of the entire Western liberal tradition, including "popular
sovereignty, civil liberties, and 'natural rights' concerned with
such things as freedom of conscience and separation of church and state."
As Shupe notes, there would be no place in this reformed society for Jews,
Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Baha'is, humanists, atheists, or even
non-reconstructionist Christians. Movement founder Rousas John (R.J.)
Rushdoony has stated that "in the name of toleration, the believer is asked
to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the
pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions."
Indeed, the writings of leading members of the movement suggest
that any dissenters could be "eliminated." Gary North, Rushdoony's
estranged son-in-law and one of reconstructionism's most militant
spokesmen, has asserted that "the perfect love of God necessarily involves
the perfect hatred of God's enemies." North also declares: "That's how our
King wants us to pray against His enemies: let them he destroyed."
Such a destruction may be abetted by reconstructionism's most
controversial concept: the installation of the legal code of the Hebrew
Bible as the basis for civil law. This idea has led the most rigorous
reconstructionists, those associated with the teaching of Rushdoony, to
espouse the death penalty as a possible punishment for adulterers,
homosexuals, blasphemers, incorrigible juvenile delinquents, and
propagators of false doctrines, among others. Non-capital offenses could be
punished by slavery
In addition to fostering Godly families, "the purpose of the law is
to suppress, control, and/or eliminate the ungodly..." Rushdoony has
declared.'

THE PROBLEM WITH RECONSTRUCTIONISM

Absolutism and parochialism may be virtues in a religious system,
but not in a pluralistic democracy. And while reconstructionism's core
adherents are neither particularly numerous (roughly 40,000, according to
Gary North) nor unified, many of its teachings -- and teachers -- have been
absorbed into the religious right movement.
This fact should not be overstated. The r-eligious right is not
primarily reconstructionist, and most of those who do adopt some
reconstructionist teachings reject its more extreme views (and its
postrnillennialism). Christianity Today and other observers maintain that
most churchgoers have probably never heard of Rushdoony. Religion professor
James Manis states, "One often hears fundamentalist leaders articulate the
denial,' I'rn not a Reconstructionist, but...,' and then proceed to expound
a Reconstructionist tenet or two."
Reconstructionism's influence among Christian activists dates to
the 1960s and 1970s, when reconstructionists were elucidating an
evangelical political philosophy even as evangelicals began to turn to
politics after a half-century of abstention. This philosophy drew on
historic themes of dominion -- the: notion that believers are called to
exercise control over all the earth -- that came to undergird the religious
right's efforts. In 1981, Newsweek named Chalcedon, Rushdoony's Vallecito,
California, reconstructionist center, as the religious right's leading
thinktank. Robert Billings, founder of the pioneering National Christian
Action Coalition and later a Moral Majority leader, reportedly stated: "if
it weren't for [Rushdoony's] books, none of us would be here."
Rushdoony's impact on the religious right is especially disturbing
because, in addition to their theocratic intolerance, his hooks have
maligned Jews, Judaism, and Blacks, and have engaged in Holocaust
"revisionism." Other leading reconstructionists have also attacked Jews.
And though their unflinching theocratic rhetoric keeps these thinkers off
of major forurns, their association with major religious right figures and
groups underscores the apparent insensitivity of many of the "pro-family"
movement leaders.

R.J. RUSHDOONY

Rushdoony was born in New York City in 1 916, the son of Armenian
immigrants whose ancestry reportedly traces an unbroken succession of
ecclesiastics dating to the fourth century. He earned a Ph.D. in
educational philosophy, and served as a Presbyterian pastor; a missionary
to Native Americans, and a John Birch Society activist. In 1959, he
launched reconstructionism with By What Standard?, an interpretation of the
apologetics of the late Calvinist theologian Cornelius Van Til (while Van
Til is considered the "patron philosopher" of
Reconstructionism, he reportedly opposed the movement).
In 1964, Rushdoony established Chalcedon (cal-see-don), named for a
fifth century church council, to disseminate his ideas. The author of
dozens of books, he pumped out reconstructionist volumes in relative
obscurity throughout the 1960s. At the same time, he continued to cultivate
his arch-conservative secular credentials: in July 1965, according to The
John Birch Society Bulletin, he shared a conference podium with former
Noire name law school dean and popular far-right radio and television
propagandist Clarence Manion, wile once declared that the U.S. government
had adopted "in whole or in part" eight of the ten commandments of the
Communist Manifesto.

THE MOVEMENT TAKES HOLD

In 1973, Rushdoony published his massive tome, The Institutes of
Biblical Law, a 900-page exposition of the Ten Commandments (whose title
evoked John Calvin's epochal institutes of the Christian Religion). The
work became reconstructionism's benchmark text. Rushdoony's views were
absorbed by a younger and often fractious coterie, who in turn est:ablished
their own reconstructionist thinktanks and churches. The busiest enclaves
include Tyler, texas, the site of Gary North's Institute for Christian
Economics (North holds a Ph.D. in history), and Atlanta, home to both Gary;
DeMar's , American Vision and Joseph Morecraf't's Chalcedon Presbyterian
church.

RECONSTRUCTIONISM'S DISCONTENTS

The movement that Rushdoony sired has never disguised its disdain
for modern liberal govarnance and culture. "The state is a bankrupt
institution," Rushdoony asserts. The only alternative to this bankrupt
"humanistic" system is "a God-centereed government": "The choice," says
Rushdoony acolyte David Chilton, "is Christian morality or no morality."
Rushdoony believes that "every Law-system must maintain its
existence by hostility to every other- Law-system and to alien religious
foundations...." He and his kinsmen consider democracy to be "heresy"
Rushdoony calls it "the great love of the failures and cowards of` life."
lie insists that "Christianity is completely and radically
anti-detnocratic; it is committed to a spiritual aristocracy."
This aristocracy foregoes noblesse oblige, however. North says:
"People who use the phrase 'the universal brotherhood of man' to Prove an
underlying unity based mutual respect and love are rnisusing the Bible's
testimony. The universal brotherhood of man is a brotherhood of` death and
destruction."
Many Christians have failed to grasp this notion, according to
Byron Snapp. a Virginia reconstructionist. "[T]]he Christian must realize
that plualism is a myth." he maintains. "At no point in Scripture do we
read that God teaches, supports or condones pluralism. To support pluralism
is to recognize all religions as equal."
North goes even further: he encourages the likeminded to use
America's religious liberty to destroy itself:
"We must use this doctrine of religious liberty to gain
independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people
who know that there is no religious neutrality. . . Then they will get busy
in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which
finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

THE ENEMIES OF GOD

In an appendix to David Chilton's 198'7 reconstructionist reading
of the prophecies of Revelation, The Days of Vengeance, colleague James
Jordan wrote, "At the present time, the Jews are apostate enemies of
God...." Breaking with most evangelicals, Jordan asserted that "Modern
apostate Jews have absolutely no theological, and therefore no historical
right to the land ol` Palestine." Thus, "Christian Zionism is blasphemy. It
is a heresy."
Jordan maintains a disinterested view of political events in the
Middle East: "As Christians we see both Jews and Moslems [sic] as groups
that have rejected Christ as Messiah, and who have opposed the true faith.
If they want to convert, we rejoice. If` they want to kill each other off,
then that is too bad, but let them have at it -- there's nothing we can do
about ii."
In his 1999 work, The Judeo-Christian Tradition, North mused on the
Jews rejection of Jesus with his customary brio: "The Jews as a covenanted
nation refused to listen. Instead, they killed Jesus -- divorce through
execution. They submitted their- own final divorce papers to God by killing
the bridegroom To their shock and horror, the Bridegroom returned from the
dead to issue the final divorce decree to Israel."
In killing God, North argues, the Jews bankrupted their religion
and joined the ranks of humanists -- the enemies of God.l He states: "The
crisis of modern Judaisrn is today the crisis of humanism. Rushdoony
identified the underlying problem a generation ago [in a 1967 newsletter]:
Judaism grew out of the rejection of Jesus Christ and steadily became
humanism, and the Talmud is essentially the exposition of humanism under
the face of` Scripture."'
As Rushdoony maintained in his Institutes: "Although Israel between
the captivity and the crucifixion observed the sabbaths of` the earth, at
other Points they despised God, and they crucified His Son, so that the
curse fell upon them and the earth for their sake."

"THE INSTITUTES" -- HOLOCAUST "REVISIONISM"

In The Institutes, Rushdoony elaborates 18 offenses which, he
contends, merit the death penalty according to Mosaic law. In his
exposition of one of these offenses -- bearing "false witness in a case
involving a capital offense" -- he writes:
The false witness borne during World War II with respect to Germany
is especially notable and revealing. The charge is repeatedly made that six
million innocent Jews were slain by the Nazis, and the figure -- and even
larger figures -- is now entrenched in the history books. Poncins, in
summarizing the studies of the French Socialist, Paul Rassinier, himself a
prisoner in Buchenwald, states:

"Rassinier reached the conclusion that the number of Jews who died
after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 and this figure, he tells us,
has finally been accepted as valid.... Likewise he notes that Paul [sic]
Hilberg, in his study of the same problem, reached a total of 896,292
victims."
Very many of these people died of epidemics: many were executed.(5)
Rushdoony argues that the purportedly inflated Holocaust death toll derives
from a "basic insensitivity to truth which too extensively characterizes
this age." Histories of the Holocaust, he contends, are exaggerated to
shock the insensitive:
"...a generation schooled to violence in motion pictures, radio,
literature, and press could riot be expected to react to a murder or two.
The result was a desperately twisted mentality which could only appreciate
evil as evil on a massive scale. Did tile Nazis actually execute many
thousands, tens, or hundred thousands of Jews? Men to whom such murders
were nothing had to blow up the figure to millions.... The evils were all
too, real: even greater is the evil of bearing false witness concerning
them...."
Poncins, bitterly anti-Jewish, is ready to report the errors in
thc` accounts of Nazi murders of Jews; he is not ready to be distressed
that any were brutally murdered.

Despite the ostensible compassion of this last phrase, these
passages comprise a striking addition to the canons of` Nazi apology. The
addition may be termed Holocaust reconstructionism: Jews were wrongfully
killed by Nazis; the number of victims was vastly inflated to shock a
desensitized modern world; the Nazis were therein victims of false witness;

false witness is punishable hy execution. One may deduce from this twisted

scheme that those who refute Holocaust "revisionism" and its false
calculations deserve death.

GARY NORTH AND THE "FINAL SOLUTION"

Gary North wrote three appendices to Rushdoony's Institutes, adding
his imprimatur to his father-in-law's hateful theories. While apparently
refraining from outright revisionism himself, he adds an unpleasant coda to
Rushdoony in The Judeo-Christian Tradition:
"The words 素inal solution' have been associated with Hitler's
Third Reich. The phrase is used in history textbooks to describe the
removal of Jews through extermination. But what people fail to understand
is that the concept of the 素inal solution' is universal. Ever): religion
and every social philosophy has a doctrine of final solution, some means of
eliminating 爽nbelievers'.... The Jews will eventually be reconciled to
God through iaith in Jesus Christ.... This is God's "final solution" in
history to the wall of` separation between gentiles and Jews."
Nazism here becomes a natural and fitting approach to reconciling
differences even God is a kind of Fuhrer.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99

to

"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message
>news:TPf5N7MfGCS=ADONFSsw...@4ax.com...
>> "Despite the ostensible compassion of this last phrase, these
>> passages comprise a striking addition to the canons of` Nazi apology.
>> The addition may be termed Holocaust reconstructionism: Jews were
>> wrongfully killed by Nazis; the number of victims was vastly inflated
>> to shock a desensitized modern world; the Nazis were therein victims
>> of false witness; false witness is punishable by execution. One may
>> deduce from this twisted scheme that those who refute Holocaust
>> "revisionism" and its false calculations deserve death."
>>
>> This was sent to me and it concerns this Rushdoony business. I'll tell
>> you folks, this is pretty hateful when such distortions of history
>> become a part of a program.
>
>Having lived in Germany for over 20 years I'm very concerned about this sort
>of thing. Where does this quote come from, please? How does it tie in with
>the Reconstructionists? The quote needs context, at least a reference to
>what the quote itself is quoting.

I believe Mr. Allison helped me out. I'd be real concerned. There is
also groups that are "Christian Identity" and I'm not sure of the
relationships.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:

I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.

>Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message
>news:TPf5N7MfGCS=ADONFSsw...@4ax.com...
>> "Despite the ostensible compassion of this last phrase, these
>> passages comprise a striking addition to the canons of` Nazi apology.
>> The addition may be termed Holocaust reconstructionism: Jews were
>> wrongfully killed by Nazis; the number of victims was vastly inflated
>> to shock a desensitized modern world; the Nazis were therein victims
>> of false witness; false witness is punishable by execution. One may
>> deduce from this twisted scheme that those who refute Holocaust
>> "revisionism" and its false calculations deserve death."
>>
>> This was sent to me and it concerns this Rushdoony business. I'll tell
>> you folks, this is pretty hateful when such distortions of history
>> become a part of a program.
>
>Having lived in Germany for over 20 years I'm very concerned about this sort
>of thing. Where does this quote come from, please? How does it tie in with
>the Reconstructionists? The quote needs context, at least a reference to
>what the quote itself is quoting.
>

Mike Marlow

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message

news:o5L8N2khXvJUHN...@4ax.com...

> "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
>

Guess that just goes to show that we all have our campaigns to wage, and
there is no need to believe that what is critically important to you is
equally important to everyone else.

-Mike-
mike....@usa.net

...then again you could look at the name of this newsgroup and take a stab
at why certain types of discussions don't really go a long way here. Which
in no way explains why some others have gone on painfully long.....

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"Mike Marlow" <mike....@usa.net> wrote:

>
>Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message
>news:o5L8N2khXvJUHN...@4ax.com...
>> "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
>>
>
>
>Guess that just goes to show that we all have our campaigns to wage, and
>there is no need to believe that what is critically important to you is
>equally important to everyone else.

A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
credibility.

Fascinating.

David W. Varidel (BD)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis wrote in message ...

>
>I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.

Nope. Mike Curtis (that's you), Jalison and Watwinc all had a stab at it.
No-one else was interested.

If you want to get a thread going, try mentioning spam or bagpipes or
committees. Better yet, repost stuff from Alt.Humor - that is sure to get a
rise :-)

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"David W. Varidel (BD)" <dvar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Btw, I know your ticked when you name a thread after me. this makes me
the target and not the argument. It's ad hominem and juvenile. Good
show!

rc

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in article
<FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>...

> "Mike Marlow" <mike....@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message
> >news:o5L8N2khXvJUHN...@4ax.com...
> >> "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>

> >> I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
> >>
> >
> >

> >Guess that just goes to show that we all have our campaigns to wage, and
> >there is no need to believe that what is critically important to you is
> >equally important to everyone else.
>
> A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
> holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
> credibility.
>
> Fascinating.
>
>
> Mike Curtis
>

Assumptions can get you into trouble. I am interested in *many* of the
threads that I simply have no time to comment on. Right now, I am
discussing where "Sanko" is(my 4 year old's pet shoelace) helping my
daughter with her hair, spelling words for my 6 year old, and making sure
my 10 year old is starting on his math. The only reason I am *on* the
computer now is to check if my church scanned my kids picture and put it on
the website yet(nope) The kids are more cooperative because I am doing
*this* = ) and the babies were feed not to long ago. I thought I'd check
out this thread since it started not too long ago(we're not usually too
"current" here)
In other words---I don't have the time to get into any "deeper" threads
right now. I wonder how representative I may be of others who read here?
I have to go now, my 5 year old needs to sing a song to me.

Rebecca

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:

> Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
> >

> >I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
>

> Nope. Mike Curtis (that's you), Jalison and Watwinc all had a stab at it.
> No-one else was interested.
>
> If you want to get a thread going, try mentioning spam or bagpipes or
> committees. Better yet, repost stuff from Alt.Humor - that is sure to get a
> rise :-)

You forgot to mention our nonresident, irrelavant,
nonRev... winter of discontent, FCS, tattoos,
emoticons and brevity.

MaG
Anyone else have any topics to add?

David W. Varidel (BD)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>

>So you aren't concerned about anti-Semites in this thing called
>Ruchdoonery and Reconstructionism? Fascinating.

I do not support *every* statement *ever* made by *anyone* calling
themselves (or labelled by others) a Reconstructionist.

I do support the following creed as posted before. Other than that, watch
my life, and see the fruit of this belief structure.

Regards,

David W. Varidel
dvar...@optusnet.com.au
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~dvaridel
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

"Not on my watch....."

============================

Via: http://www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html

The Creed of Christian Reconstruction by Rev. Andrew Sandlin

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Calvinist. He holds to historic,
orthodox, catholic Christianity and the great Reformed confessions. He
believes God, not man, is the center of the universe and beyond; God, not
man, controls whatever comes to pass; God, not man, must be pleased and
obeyed. He believes God saves sinners. He does not help them save
themselves. A Christian Reconstructionist believes the Faith should apply to
all of life, not just
the "spiritual" side. It applies to art, education, technology, and politics
no less than to church, prayer, evangelism, and Bible Study.

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Theonomist. Theonomy means "God's law." A
Christian Reconstructionist believes God's law is found in the Bible. It has
not been abolished as a standard of righteousness. It no longer accuses the
Christian, since Christ bore its penalty on the cross for him. But the law
is a description of God's righteous character. It cannot change any more
than God can change. God's law is used for three main purposes: First, to
drive the sinner to trust in Christ alone, the only perfect law-keeper.
Second, to provide a standard of obedience for the Christian, by which he
may judge his progress in sanctification. And third, to maintain order in
society, restraining and arresting civil evil.

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Presuppositionalist. He does not try to
"prove" that God exists or that the Bible is true. He holds to the Faith
because the Bible says so, not because he can "prove" it. He does not try to
convince the unconverted that the gospel is true. They already know it is
true when they hear it. They need repentance, not evidence. Of course, the
Christian Reconstructionist believes there is evidence for the Faith, in
fact, there is nothing but evidence for the Faith. The problem for the
unconverted, though, is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of submission.
The Christian Reconstructionist begins and ends with
the Bible. He does not defend "natural theology," and other inventions
designed to find some agreement with covenant-breaking apostate mankind.

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Postmillennialist. He believes Christ
will return to earth only after the Holy Spirit has empowered the church to
advance Christ's kingdom in time and history. He has faith that God's
purposes to bring all nations, though not every individual, in subjection to
Christ cannot fail. The Christian Reconstructionist is not utopian. He does
not believe the kingdom will advance quickly or painlessly. He knows that we
enter the kingdom
through much tribulation. He knows Christians are in the fight for the "long
haul." He believes the church may yet be in her infancy. But he believes the
Faith will triumph. Under the power of the Spirit of God, it cannot but
triumph.

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Dominionist. He takes seriously the
Bible's commands to the godly to take dominion in the earth. This is the
goal of the gospel and the Great Commission. The Christian Reconstructionist
believes the earth and all its fullness is the Lord's: that every area
dominated by sin must be "reconstructed" in terms of the Bible. This
includes, first, the individual; second, the family; third, the church; and
fourth, the wider society, including the state. The Christian
Reconstructionist therefore believes fervently in Christian civilization. He
firmly believes in the separation of church and state, but not the
separation of the state or anything else from God. He is not a
revolutionary; he does not believe in the militant, forced overthrow of
human government. He has infinitely more powerful weapons than guns and
bombs, he has the invincible Spirit of God, the
infallible word of God, and the incomparable gospel of God, none of which
can fail.

He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere,
expecting eventual triumph.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"David W. Varidel (BD)" <dvar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>>

>>I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
>
>
>Nope. Mike Curtis (that's you), Jalison and Watwinc all had a stab at it.
>No-one else was interested.
>
>If you want to get a thread going, try mentioning spam or bagpipes or
>committees. Better yet, repost stuff from Alt.Humor - that is sure to get a
>rise :-)

So you aren't concerned about anti-Semites in this thing called
Ruchdoonery and Reconstructionism? Fascinating.

David W. Varidel (BD)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>

>Btw, I know your ticked when you name a thread after me. this makes me
>the target and not the argument. It's ad hominem and juvenile. Good
>show!

Nah. Not ticked. Just thought you would get a buzz outa having your own
thread. You seemed a touch miffed that your previous efforts to get a rise
had failed. Didn't want you getting bored.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"rc" <rc...@sprintmail.garbage.com> wrote:

>

>Assumptions can get you into trouble. I am interested in *many* of the

No assumptions at all. Holocaust denial is repulsive.

Visit: http://www.holocaust-history.org/ and http://www.nizkor.org

Especially these about Rushdoony:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/t/orgs/american/california/bacorr/god-guns-terror

The following was in a Usenet post by Rick Savage a holocaust denier:

Complete URL:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/t/people/s/savage.rick/1995/rs.0895

Re: Conspiracies. Who Rules?
The real question that isn't asked among those who study
conspiracies
is "Who Rules?" The trap of all conspiracy theories is that they
rarely
acknowledge God as in control of it all. Those who desire to "expose"
the conspiracies are usually the conspiracies best converts because
they
see no hope for change. The conspiracy wins because they believe
these
men really are controlling things which gives the conspiracy more
power
over their beliefs and actions. The following article deals with this
problem very well:

Who Rules?
by R.J. Rushdoony

One of the prevailing beliefs on the right and on the left is in
conspiracies. People like to believe, "They did it to us." Now
a conspiracy is a plan by a group of men to accomplish a
particular goal, and the goal may be good or bad. There have
been no lack of conspiracies in history, and they are surely with
us today. The important question is a moral and religious one:
who determines history? Conspiracies, or men under God empowered
by the sovereign and determining God?

Christianity has said, over the centuries, that man is in SIN;
Christ is man's Savior, giving man SALVATION; and the purpose of
our salvation is SERVICE, doing the King's work in terms of the
King's law-word.

If we do not see this, the power of God working through us as
determinative of history, we will see another and a dangerous
answer. We will then see history as 'determined by evil
conspiracies which exercise a radical control and power over us.
Men are then puppets and tools, not God's vicegerents called to
make all things new in Him. To regard conspiracies as
determinative of history is to deny God's sovereignty.

Not too many years ago, a man became very angry with me for
saying that the Soviet Union could not endure because it was
anti-God. The Soviet Union moreover was so derelict in its
economy that it was ensuring its own collapse. This man insisted
that the laws of economy did not apply to the Soviet Union
because it had replaced economics with slavery. He saw no hope
of its collapse.

In a world without God and His law, tyrannies can rewrite reality
and ensure their indefinite continuance, but in God's world the
wages of sin are always death. We are commanded, "Trust in Him
at all times" (Ps. 62:8). Because God is God, no power can or
does exist except by His permission.

To see history as determined by conspiracies, or by demonic
forces, or by evil men means, FIRST, to deny that God is the
Lord, that He is Sovereign. SECOND, it also is a denial of our
responsibility. Our Lord did not give us an impossible
commission (Matt. 28:18-20) but a totally possible, necessary,
and required one. We need to read and reread the commission to
Joshua (Josh. 1:1-9), of which the Great Commission of our Lord
is an expansion (from Canaan to the world and all nations) while
a summary thereof. The promises are remarkable: "Every place
that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given
unto you" (Josh 1:3). "Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and
of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for
the LORD thy God is with thee whatsoever thou goest" (Josh. 1:9).

One of our problems today is that we forget that we are a
COMMANDED people. One of the greatest evils in the church today
is the heretical belief that WE choose Christ. Our Lord in John
15:16 is emphatic that we do not choose Him but He chooses us and
commands us to bear fruit to Him. People who deny God's
predestination scare me; some actually say, "I know what the
Bible says here, but it can't mean what it says." God is not our
servant, although some will say, "He gives me what I ask for";
but He is our Lord and Commander who says, "You will give me all
of yourself and your substances as I require it." Between the
two attitudes, there is a world of difference, and they are
different faiths. Arminianism and conspiracy theories have much
in common.

Our is a command Faith because our God is the Lord, and He does
whatsoever He pleases (Ps. 115:3). What He ordains cannot be
undone. The nations or heathens do indeed rage, and the rulers
conspire together against God the Lord and His Messiah, but God
laughs, and He holds them in derision (Ps. 2:14). We need to
share in that heavenly laughter. Instead of trembling at the
vain imaginations of man, we need to stand fast in our faith.

Paul has a magnificent answer to all the evils the ungodly
perpetrate on God's people. Whatever happens to us, "Nay, in all
these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved
us" (Rom. 8:37). This is an audacious statement. Paul had in
mind Roman conquerors, their triumphal entries with many slaves,
the gold and other treasures of the conquered people, and their
leaders in chains. As against this fact of might conquerors,
Paul simply states that we are MORE than these conquerors in our
victories when we faithfully serve our King. Our King shall
reign when Marx, all his followers, and all other tyrants and
conspirators are only dim memories and fading lines in history.
Our Lord is the great King over all kings.
------------

This is an exerpt from: Chalcedon Report, No. 358, May 1995
P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251, Fax (209) 736-0536

############################################

That's a good start.

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Marlow wrote:

> Mike Curtis wrote...

> >
> > I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
> >

> Guess that just goes to show that we all have our campaigns to wage, and
> there is no need to believe that what is critically important to you is
> equally important to everyone else.
>

> ...then again you could look at the name of this newsgroup and take a stab
> at why certain types of discussions don't really go a long way here. Which
> in no way explains why some others have gone on painfully long.....

Here it comes... watch for it... the pole is held
back behind the shoulder, the cast is made, out
goes the line, it's going... going... right into the
center of the pond. The fish gather round the
hook, the tension is mounting... they look at each
other and laugh their little fishy laughs and nod in
silent agreement. Together they find an old boot
and attach it to the hook (after freeing the poor
worm and returning it to shore)... then the
biggest fish gives a huge yank on the line and
the fisherman frantically reels in his "fish". The
group of fish quickly swim under the boat to
giggle and watch the ensuing fun, while planning
what to stick on the hook next time... an old
tire... a huge tree branch... seaweed... perhaps,
maybe they can find that old girdle Aunt Bertha
threw in the pond during the 60's... Whatever,
this little "school" of fish has seen these type of
fishermen come and go and will be here to see
the next.

MaG
- I always loved Jesus' parables.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"David W. Varidel (BD)" <dvar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>>
>>Btw, I know your ticked when you name a thread after me. this makes me
>>the target and not the argument. It's ad hominem and juvenile. Good
>>show!
>
>
>Nah. Not ticked. Just thought you would get a buzz outa having your own
>thread. You seemed a touch miffed that your previous efforts to get a rise
>had failed. Didn't want you getting bored.

I've had my own thread several times. Many from when I was a sysop on
Compuserve. I'm not easily buzzed. I know the game you are playing.

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:

> Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
> >

> >I've had my own thread several times. Many from when I was a sysop on
> >Compuserve. I'm not easily buzzed. I know the game you are playing.
>

> .... and am I winning?

LOL!

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:

>Mike Marlow wrote:

Let me give you a clue. I have found within my many years of refuting
holocaust denial is that strong Christian groups are easily influenced
by the myths of holocaust denial. They tend to pass pseudohistory off
on their children as a part of home schooling. I've seen it happen in
real life. I'm not generalizing I'm presenting a caution that doesn't
seem to be taken very seriously here. Fishing stories are nice but
they are meaningless when it comes to the truth of history which ought
to be the concern here.

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

PCD or tpfkaBD or Dubbo Dude, are you
playing games again? Tell Mama Bear you need
your meds again. ;)

MaG

John Decker

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

good how mate!

"David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:

> Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
> >
> >I've had my own thread several times. Many from when I was a sysop on
> >Compuserve. I'm not easily buzzed. I know the game you are playing.
>
> .... and am I winning?
>

> David W. Varidel
> dvar...@optusnet.com.au
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~dvaridel
> <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
>
> "Not on my watch....."

--

-------------
Preach Jesus, not Elvis.

HMSCLMom

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

In article <FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>, Mike Curtis
<mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:

>denying the
>holocaust is to me quite important

Seems to me we gave it all the attention such a thought deserves. Little to
none. It is so ridiculous in the extreme that I saw no reason whatsoever to
address the kooks who would hold to this view.

Paula
"God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a
sound mind."
McCartney Family Home Page (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/4889/)
Welcome to Berean Baptist Church (http://www.berean-houston.org/)

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

For those who don't understand this story as
anything other than a story, enjoy... read it to
your children, delete it, whatever.

For anyone who wants to read this continuing
saga... read on.

Some member of the Douglas Family wrote:

> Here it comes... watch for it... the pole is held
> back behind the shoulder, the cast is made, out
> goes the line, it's going... going... right into the
> center of the pond. The fish gather round the
> hook, the tension is mounting... they look at each
> other and laugh their little fishy laughs and nod in
> silent agreement. Together they find an old boot
> and attach it to the hook (after freeing the poor
> worm and returning it to shore)... then the
> biggest fish gives a huge yank on the line and
> the fisherman frantically reels in his "fish". The
> group of fish quickly swim under the boat to
> giggle and watch the ensuing fun, while planning
> what to stick on the hook next time... an old
> tire... a huge tree branch... seaweed... perhaps,
> maybe they can find that old girdle Aunt Bertha
> threw in the pond during the 60's... Whatever,
> this little "school" of fish has seen these type of
> fishermen come and go and will be here to see
> the next.

As the fisherman removes the boot from his line
and mutters something about disappearing worms
the little group of fish under the boat roar with
their fishy laughter. They are of course, very glad
that humans can't hear fish laugh. Then they
begin to plot their next move....

They are delighted to have found Aunt Bertha's
girdle and their next plan hinges on it. The
fisherman has recast his line and the fish gleefully
swim to it. Once again they surround it and
carefully free the worm, next they slowly and
with extreme care attach Aunt Bertha's girdle.

Ah.. the girdle... what a wonderful invention all
that elastic and strings and buckles...
the fish smile with their mischievous fish faces.

Now that the girdle well hooked the leader
motions to the rest to each grab a string, on his
signal they all pull and swim as hard and as fast
as they can away from the fisherman.
"GO," the signal is given and the fish race for
the far end of the pond!

The fisherman is ecstatic! He's sure he has the
biggest fish in the pond on the end of his line. He
begins his fight with the "fish", first -give a little,
then -reel in... give out, reel in... give out, reel in.
As the group of fish slowly let themselves be
pulled toward the boat they look to their leader...
this time when the fisherman begins to reel in
they pull harder... the fisherman tugs back...
the fish yank with all their might, eyes on the
leader... the fisherman pulls with all his might...
the leader signals... the fish let go... SPLASH!!

The fisherman goes over the edge of the boat,
never letting go of his pole. He wants that prize
"fish" *really* bad. The fish take hold of the
strings again. This time however, they don't pull
nearly as hard. The fisherman believes he's
winning. Looking to their leader again the fish
wait for the next signal.

"GO", The fish once again race to the end of
the pond. The fisherman was expecting this so
he didn't lose his grip or his balance. He starts
to reel in hard knowing that the "fish" must be
tired by now. Slowly at first... then faster and
faster... this "fish" is his, he can feel it. Faster
and faster... yes, yes, he's got it now... there isn't
any resistance at all (the fish have let go of the
strings). It's almost here the "fish" is coming in so
fast now that the fisherman can almost see his
trophy. Suddenly, he sees a grayish white mass
just before... FWAP!

Aunt Bertha's girdle hits him full force, the strings
are like tentacles that wrap themselves around his
body, while the rusty buckles scrape his skin and
the wormless hook embeds itself in his left nostril.
Hours later our fisherman has unentangled
himself and rows his boat away muttering under
his breath about pollution, stupid fish and fish
conspiracies.

Meanwhile under the water, the fish are once
again doing fish things and laughing about the
naiveté of fishermen who don't have a clue about
how savvy the fish in that pond really are, and
eagerly await their next chance to enjoy their
sport of "Menning". (Think about it a minute...
fish / fishing... men / menning.) If the fishermen
only knew what the *true* conspiracy was. ;)

MaG

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

hmsc...@aol.comwwjd (HMSCLMom) wrote:

>In article <FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>, Mike Curtis
><mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
>
>>denying the
>>holocaust is to me quite important
>
>Seems to me we gave it all the attention such a thought deserves. Little to
>none. It is so ridiculous in the extreme that I saw no reason whatsoever to
>address the kooks who would hold to this view.

Seems that some of them are these separation of school and state
folks. Fascinating.

Know what else is absolutely true? Your attitude reflects exactly the
same attitude the Jews had to the Nazis in Germany before they
discovered that the Nazis meant to go beyond politics.

Lee (Booklover)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in
message news:37FCA7DB...@innova.net...

> "David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:
>
> > Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >I've had my own thread several times. Many from when I was a
sysop on
> > >Compuserve. I'm not easily buzzed. I know the game you are
playing.
> >
> > .... and am I winning?
>

> PCD or tpfkaBD or Dubbo Dude, are you
> playing games again? Tell Mama Bear you need
> your meds again. ;)

I'd agree, but first, I still want to know what 'meds' means in
Oz.......

--
In Messiah,
Ignorant-Lee
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
".....maybe there is woe enough yet to come, though still hope may
seem bright."
--Galadriel

http://home-educate.com/ Home Sweet Home-School
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~

Lee (Booklover)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote...

> "rc" <rc...@sprintmail.garbage.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >Assumptions can get you into trouble. I am interested in *many* of
the
>
> No assumptions at all. Holocaust denial is repulsive.

What does your assumption that people here aren't interested vs. the
fact that many might just be too busy to get involved in discussions
(as Rebecca stated when she said: "Assumptions can get you into
trouble. I am interested in *many* of the threads that I simply have
no time to comment on.") have to do the the repulsiveness of Holocaust
denial?

Just curious....

--
In Messiah,
Confused-Lee

Lee (Booklover)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

:::::blinking innocently:::::
Hey MaG, is that fishing boat a trawler or a troller?

--
In Messiah,

Lee
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
".....maybe there is woe enough yet to come, though still hope may
seem bright."
--Galadriel

http://home-educate.com/ Home Sweet Home-School
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~

Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in

message news:37FCBF68...@innova.net...

John Decker

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

oops, I missed the S good show, mate!

John Decker wrote:

> good how mate!

>
> "David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:
>
> > Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >I've had my own thread several times. Many from when I was a sysop on
> > >Compuserve. I'm not easily buzzed. I know the game you are playing.
> >
> > .... and am I winning?
> >

Bruce D. Ray

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

In article <37fc250f...@news.pilot.infi.net>, jal...@pilot.infi.net
wrote:

And was quoting from __The religious Right: The Assault
on Tolerance & Pluralism in America__, A publication of
the Anti-Defamation League. (1994) pp 119-126:

> What Mike quoted from is the following:

I had some difficulty in finding where in Rushdoony
that was quoted from. It does not show up indexed
under the alleged topic of "false witness in a case
involving a capital offense" because it does not
contain anything about that at all. I am going to
have to divide this into several posts as I get time
over the next several weeks. I will note the pages
from which the sections quoted were excised and the
pages from which I add material that was excised.
I will also fill in some ellipses. My page number
citations are from:

Rushdoony, R.J. (1973) __The Institutes of Biblical
Law__ Presbyterian & Reformed, Philipsburg, NJ, LCC
no. 72-79485.

> "THE INSTITUTES" -- HOLOCAUST "REVISIONISM"
>
> In The Institutes, Rushdoony elaborates 18 offenses which, he
> contends, merit the death penalty according to Mosaic law. In his
> exposition of one of these offenses -- bearing "false witness in a case
> involving a capital offense" -- he writes:

Actually, chapter 9, section 10, pp. 585-590 from which
selected quotes were excised from pages 586, and edited,
has the title, "The Lying Tongue". Not one word is written
in this section about "false witness in a case involving
a capital offense". Furthermore, Rushdoony concludes
section 10 {on page 590} with the words,

"Rather, we must refuse to accord any lie the status of
a privileged communication and must instead correct and/or
rebuke the liar, and, if need be, expose his tactics."

Now, to me it does not seem as if this is a call for
executions. To me, this is a ringing clarion call
for verbal admonitions and publication. I do not find
one single word in this entire section about Mosaic
law death penalties. I do not find one word in this
section to indicate that this is an exposition of a
Mosaic Law offense. Perhaps somebody could point out
to me where those words occur *in this section*?

Two paragraphs prior {p.586} to the excised quote,
Rushdoony stated his thesis as being:

"With the two world wars, lying became especially prominent
in international politics."

> The false witness borne during World War II with respect to Germany
> is especially notable and revealing. The charge is repeatedly made that six
> million innocent Jews were slain by the Nazis, and the figure -- and even
> larger figures -- is now entrenched in the history books. Poncins, in
> summarizing the studies of the French Socialist, Paul Rassinier, himself a
> prisoner in Buchenwald, states:
>
> "Rassinier reached the conclusion that the number of Jews who died
> after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 and this figure, he tells us,
> has finally been accepted as valid .... Likewise he notes that Paul [sic]
^^^

*restoring what was ommitted by the ellipses in the excised
portion of the passage {see p. 586}*

"by the Centre Mondial de Documentation Juive Contemporaine."

{Now, would it be correct to say that this World Center
for Contemporary Jewish Documentation [translating the
French] is a Jewish organization? Why are there ellipses
to omit those particular 8 words? Don't these particular
8 words have any bearing on the issue of Rushdoony's
meaning?}

> Hilberg, in his study of the same problem, reached a total of 896,292
> victims."

Entire indented two sentence quote footnoted as: Vicomte
Leon de Poncins: __Judaisim and the Vatican__ (London:
Britons Publishing Company, 1967), p.178

> Very many of these people died of epidemics: many were executed.(5)

{A number 5 does not appear in the text at this point
but at the end of the quote the composed was the prior
two sentences.}

Rushdoony then wrote {this extends from page 586 to 587}:

"Meanwhile, let us note that not much has been said of the
very extensive murders perpetrated by the Communists. The
United States assisted in these by handing over General
Wlassov and his army of anti-communist Russians to the
Communists for execution. The Communists executed 12,000
Polish army officers in the Katyn Forest; 400,000 Poles
died on their deportation journey. Of 100,000 German
prisoners captured at Stalingrad, only 5,000 came back
alive; 95,000 died in the prison camps; 4,000,000 of the
Germans deported by the Communists from Silesia died, and
so on."

Footnoted here as: "Ibid, p. 101 f. See also J. K. Zawodny:
__Death in the Forest, The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre__
(Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962);
Edward J. Rozek: __Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in
Poland__ (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958); Albert Kalme:
__Total Terror, An Expose of Genocide in the Baltics__ (New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951); and Harold M. Martinson:
__Red Dragon Over China__ (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1956)."

Continuing {still on p. 587}, Rushdoony wrote:

"The British and the Americans on February 13, 1945 attacked
by air Dresden, a hospital city, and killed 130,000 people,
almost twice the toll at Hiroshima, without any good military
reason."

Footnoted here as: David Irving: __The Destruction of Dresden__
(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964)

Continuing further {still on p. 587}, Rushdoony wrote:

"Thus, without going into the Pacific arean of the war, it
is clear that all concerned were engaged not only in warfare
but murder as well, with the Communists pursuing it as a
commonplace policy of state."

In the next paragraph {p. 587}, Rushdoony wrote:

"Let us turn now to another aspect of the same problem.
A popular post-war novel described events at Auschwitz
during the war and presented its material not only as
fact but actually used the real names of living persons.
Thus, a Polish physician who was a prisoner of war in
the camp and serving in the camp medical corps was charged
with having performed 17,000 'experiments' on Jewish
prisoners in surgery without anaesthetics. The doctor
immediately sued the novelist for libel. The trial, held
in London, quickly reduced the 17,000 cases to 130 contested
ones; sterilization of Jewsih women and the castration of
men were basic to the 'experiments.' Had the doctor
refused, a witness stated, he himself would have been killed.
The number of _established_ {emphasis, Rushdoony's} cases
was few; 17,000 was a false figure. The judge, in his
summation to the jury, stated that he could give them 'no
guidance about morals.' The doctor won the case, his award
being the smallest coin of the realm, one halfpenny; his
share of the legal costs was about 20,000 pounds."

Footnoted here as: Mavis M. Hill and L. Norman Williams:
__Auschwitz in England, A Record of a Libel Action__ (New
York: Stein and Day, 1965) {N.B., A drama about this was
filmed [TV miniseries IIRC] titled __QB VII__, referring
to Queen's Bench 7.}

Continuing this paragraph {p. 587}, Rushdoony wrote:

"The jury agreed that he had been the victim of libel, but
it also believe his guilt to be still real enough to merit
only a token victory."

Rushdoony began his following paragraph {extends
from p. 587 to 588} as:

"This trial brings to focus the basic insensitivity to truth
which too extensively characterizes this age. The fact that
a doctor under any pressure would perform such operations is
itself an ugly fact. If only ten were performed, or one
alone, instead of 130 or 17,000. the crime is real and very
serious. Why then the gross exaggeration?"

> Rushdoony argues that the purportedly inflated Holocaust death toll derives
> from a "basic insensitivity to truth which too extensively characterizes
> this age."

This was excised from the paragraph starting on p. 587
and extending to p. 588 given above.

> Histories of the Holocaust, he contends, are exaggerated to
> shock the insensitive:

Restoring from the ellipses {p. 588}:

"Let us examine the mass murders of World War II, and the
background of false witness during World War I and later.
Life had become so cheap and meaningless to these heads of
state and their camp followers that a murder or two meant
nothing. Likewise, "

> "...a generation schooled to violence in motion pictures, radio,
> literature, and press could riot be expected to react to a murder or two.
> The result was a desperately twisted mentality which could only appreciate
> evil as evil on a massive scale. Did the Nazis actually execute many
> thousands, tens, or hundred thousands of Jews? Men to whom such murders
> were nothing had to blow up the figure to millions....

Again restoring from the ellipses {p. 588}:

"Did the doctor perform a number of experiments on living men
and women? A few sterilized women and a few castrated men and
their horrified tears and grief are not enough to stir the sick
and jaded tastes of modern man: make him guilty of performing
17,000 such operations."

> The evils were all
> too, real: even greater is the evil of bearing false witness concerning
> them...."

Again restoring from the ellipses {p. 588}:

"because that false witness will produce an even more vicious
reality in the next upheaval. Men are now "reconciled" to a
world where millions are murdered. What will be required in
the way of action and propaganda next time?"

{Now, with that addition of the *reason* for Rushdoony's
objections to claims undocumented at the time they were
made [Note the British trial evidence, and note also that
evidence at the time a claim is made is what is under
discussion.], is Rushdoony engaged in revisionism? Could
Rushdoony be engaged in insisting that claims be limited
to that that can be physically documented at the time the
claims are made, instead?}

> Poncins, bitterly anti-Jewish, is ready to report the errors in
> thc` accounts of Nazi murders of Jews; he is not ready to be distressed
> that any were brutally murdered.

That was from the next to the last paragraph of page
589. Of course, commenting on Poncins in the prior
paragraph {also p. 589}, Rushdoony wrote defending
the topical statement, "Basic to all lying tongues
is the unwillingness to accept responsibility.":

"Thus, to return to Poncins, the thesis of his study is
that the Church of Rome has been victimized by the Jews.
The plight of the church is not the responsibility of the
church; churchmen from the pope down are all whitewashed."

Footnoted as: Poncins, _op. cit._, pp. 32 ff., 80, 160 ff.

Continuing this quote {p. 589}:

"For Poncins the guilt always lies elsewhere, with the
Jews or with the Freemasons."

Footnoted as: Vicomte Leon de Poncins, _Freemasonry and
the Vatican__ (London: Britons Publishing Company, 1968).

Rushdoony concluded the paragraph that contained this
passage on Poncins with {p. 589}:

"A liar is thus more dangerous than a theif: he destroys
far more, and he lets loose greater evils."

> Despite the ostensible compassion of this last phrase, these
> passages comprise a striking addition to the canons of` Nazi apology. The
> addition may be termed Holocaust reconstructionism: Jews were wrongfully
> killed by Nazis; the number of victims was vastly inflated to shock a
> desensitized modern world; the Nazis were therein victims of false witness;

> false witness is punishable hy execution.

Once again, what was Rushdoony's concluding sentence to
this section? Was it not:

"Rather, we must refuse to accord any lie the status of
a privileged communication and must instead correct and/or
rebuke the liar, and, if need be, expose his tactics."?

How is *this* a call for executions?

> One may deduce from this twisted
> scheme that those who refute Holocaust "revisionism" and its false
> calculations deserve death.

One might deduce that if one ignores Rushdoony's
concluding sentence to the section from which Anti-
defamation League excised and edited its quotes.
Rushdoony did not draw that conclusion. Rushdoony
appears not to have made that deduction. Rushdoony's
conclusion was:

"Rather, we must refuse to accord any lie the status of
a privileged communication and must instead correct and/or
rebuke the liar, and, if need be, expose his tactics."?

To me, that reads like a call for verbal admonition. I
suggest that Anti-Defamation League has made an error in
their deduction.

--
Warning to commercial e-mailers {spammers}: The e-mail
address provided above is for information purposes only
and is subjected to extensive e-mail filtering. Do not
send unsolicited commercial e-mail to this address.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"Lee (Booklover)" <Bookl...@excite.com> wrote:

>Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote...

>> "rc" <rc...@sprintmail.garbage.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Assumptions can get you into trouble. I am interested in *many* of
>the
>>
>> No assumptions at all. Holocaust denial is repulsive.
>

>What does your assumption that people here aren't interested vs. the
>fact that many might just be too busy to get involved in discussions
>(as Rebecca stated when she said: "Assumptions can get you into
>trouble. I am interested in *many* of the threads that I simply have
>no time to comment on.") have to do the the repulsiveness of Holocaust
>denial?
>
>Just curious....

Me too.

watwinc

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in message
news:37FCBF68...@innova.net...
> For those who don't understand this story as
> anything other than a story, enjoy... read it to
> your children, delete it, whatever.
>
> For anyone who wants to read this continuing
> saga... read on.
>

Did you have a point? Have you heard of the St Louis
(http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/voyage.html)? Now *there's* a
story.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

br...@iupui.edu (Bruce D. Ray) wrote:

>> "THE INSTITUTES" -- HOLOCAUST "REVISIONISM"

>Two paragraphs prior {p.586} to the excised quote,
>Rushdoony stated his thesis as being:
>
>"With the two world wars, lying became especially prominent
>in international politics."
>
>
>> The false witness borne during World War II with respect to Germany
>> is especially notable and revealing. The charge is repeatedly made that six
>> million innocent Jews were slain by the Nazis, and the figure -- and even
>> larger figures -- is now entrenched in the history books. Poncins, in
>> summarizing the studies of the French Socialist, Paul Rassinier, himself a
>> prisoner in Buchenwald, states:
>>
>> "Rassinier reached the conclusion that the number of Jews who died
>> after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 and this figure, he tells us,
>> has finally been accepted as valid .... Likewise he notes that Paul [sic]
> ^^^

Deportation where? All the deportations? Rassinier is a known
holocaust denier.

From
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/t/people/f/felderer.ditlieb/holocaust-denial-today

The intellectual father of the movement was the Frenchman
Paul Rassinier, who died in 1967. Rassinier was a bundle of
contradictions. He was a socialist, an anarchist, and a
communist. His ideological, political background was from
the left, not from the right as one might expect. He was a
politician, hero, and a pacifist. He was a concentration
camp survivor, having spent two years at Dora and
Buchenwald.

Rassinier, in his personal concentration camp experience,
found that the everyday suffering inflicted on the inmates
was done primarily by the kappos. These were individuals -
themselves drawn from the camp population - placed on top of
their fellows, as a way of shielding the SS and other
authorities from the direct anger or the wrath of the
inmates. Rassinier, in a bizarre mental odyssey, went from
blaming the kappos, through absolving the Nazis of any
responsibility, to blaming the victims for inventing the
whole thing.

From
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/hilberg.raul/rassinier-distortions.01

Lipstadt, Deborah. _Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on
Truth and Memory_. The Free Press, New York. pp. 58-59, 246. The
bracketed comments are Lipstadt's.

In trying to make his case, Rassinier fabricated data, misquoted,
and used quotations out of context. He first tried to demonstrate
that Arendt and Hilberg were in disagreement about the number of
Jews who were killed in Poland. According to Rassinier, in her
February 23, 1963, _New Yorker_ article Arendt "coolly inform[ed] us
that 'three million Polish Jews were massacred during the first day
of the war'" He then wrote: "Mr. Raul Hilberg found the 'about
200,000,000 _Polish_ Jews, ... were transported to their deaths in
1942 and 1943." Rassinier complained about this apparent
contradiction between the findings of these two historians and
added: "It would be a good thing to come to an understanding: were
there in Poland 3 to 3.3 million Jews during the war, as all
statisticians unanimously claim, including those who are Jewish, or
were there 5.7 million as Mme. Hannah Arendt is obliged to claim,
since here are 5 million exterminated." ^21

Rassinier simply falsified Arendt's statement. In addition, he made
minor but strategically important changes in Hilberg's quote and
then quoted it out of context in order to make it appear as if there
were some contradiction between the two scholars. In _The
Destruction of the European Jews_, Hilberg analyzed the role of the
railways in the annihilation process. He observed that the "railway
network managed to carry about 2,000,000 Polish Jews to their deaths
in 1942 and 1943." Rassinier ignored the references to the railway
network. He makes it appear as if Hilberg is citing the total
number of Polish Jews who were annihilated and not just those
transported by rail. (Hilberg does not include in this total Jews
deported by other means and those who were killed in ghettoes or in
areas immediately adjacent to their homes. ^22) When those Polish
victims are included, Hilberg's total comes to three million Polish
Jews.

But Rassinier committed an even more egregious falsehood in
connection with Arendt's quote. Arendt did _not_ write that three
million Polish Jews were killed in the first day. Discussing German
estimates of the number of Jews left in Europe in 1940, Arendt
observed that one particular estimate "did not include three million
Polish Jews, who, as everybody knew, had been in the process of
being massacred even since the first days of the war." ^23 By
changing Arendt's quote to say three millions had been killed _on
the first day_, Rassinier manages to make Arendt sound not only in
total contradiction to other historians but quite out of touch with
reality. Deniers would repeatedly rely on this tactic to try to
make the findings of Holocaust historians seem particularly
fantastic.

21. Pierre Hofstetter, Introduction to Paul Rassinier, _Debunking
the Genocide Myth: A study of the Nazi Concentration Camps and the
Alleged Extermination of European Jewry_ (Torrance, California,
1978), p. 219.

22. Raul Hilberg, _The Destruction of the European Jews_ (New York,
1967), p. 311; _Debunking_, p. 219.

23. Hannah Arendt, "A Reporter at Large: Eichmann in Jerusalem --
II," _The New Yorker_, Feb. 23, 1963, p. 66.

>*restoring what was ommitted by the ellipses in the excised
>portion of the passage {see p. 586}*
>
>"by the Centre Mondial de Documentation Juive Contemporaine."
>
>
>{Now, would it be correct to say that this World Center
>for Contemporary Jewish Documentation [translating the
>French] is a Jewish organization? Why are there ellipses
>to omit those particular 8 words? Don't these particular
>8 words have any bearing on the issue of Rushdoony's
>meaning?}

It matters not the organization but to what the numbers apply.

>> Hilberg, in his study of the same problem, reached a total of 896,292
>> victims."

Ah, the discussion here is concerning Auschwitz alone and not the
whole of the Jewish part of the holocaust.

[snip]

>Rushdoony then wrote {this extends from page 586 to 587}:
>
>"Meanwhile, let us note that not much has been said of the
>very extensive murders perpetrated by the Communists. The
>United States assisted in these by handing over General
>Wlassov and his army of anti-communist Russians to the
>Communists for execution. The Communists executed 12,000
>Polish army officers in the Katyn Forest; 400,000 Poles
>died on their deportation journey. Of 100,000 German
>prisoners captured at Stalingrad, only 5,000 came back
>alive; 95,000 died in the prison camps; 4,000,000 of the
>Germans deported by the Communists from Silesia died, and
>so on."

This is called trivializing. The Russians own their crimes and the
Germans own theirs.

>Footnoted here as: "Ibid, p. 101 f. See also J. K. Zawodny:
>__Death in the Forest, The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre__
>(Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962);
>Edward J. Rozek: __Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in
>Poland__ (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958); Albert Kalme:
>__Total Terror, An Expose of Genocide in the Baltics__ (New
>York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951); and Harold M. Martinson:
>__Red Dragon Over China__ (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1956)."

>Continuing {still on p. 587}, Rushdoony wrote:
>
>"The British and the Americans on February 13, 1945 attacked
>by air Dresden, a hospital city, and killed 130,000 people,
>almost twice the toll at Hiroshima, without any good military
>reason."

The number is incorrrect. 30,000 is the number thought to be accurate.

>Footnoted here as: David Irving: __The Destruction of Dresden__
>(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964)

For information about David Irving
http://www.holocaust-history.org/pamphlets/irving/

>Continuing further {still on p. 587}, Rushdoony wrote:
>
>"Thus, without going into the Pacific arean of the war, it
>is clear that all concerned were engaged not only in warfare
>but murder as well, with the Communists pursuing it as a
>commonplace policy of state."

The Germans own their crimes and the Russians own theirs.

I don't know what the point of this is.

>Continuing this paragraph {p. 587}, Rushdoony wrote:
>
>"The jury agreed that he had been the victim of libel, but
>it also believe his guilt to be still real enough to merit
>only a token victory."
>
>
>Rushdoony began his following paragraph {extends
>from p. 587 to 588} as:
>
>"This trial brings to focus the basic insensitivity to truth
>which too extensively characterizes this age. The fact that
>a doctor under any pressure would perform such operations is
>itself an ugly fact. If only ten were performed, or one
>alone, instead of 130 or 17,000. the crime is real and very
>serious. Why then the gross exaggeration?"

It seems the word novel was used?

Even I can see what is going on here. Let's look at what the Germans
themselves said. Shall we?

This is what Rudolf Hoess testified to during the above deposition
during 1 April and 2 April 1946. The following conversation came on
page 14 during the 2 April 1946 Deposition at Nuremberg while they
were talking about Jews:

Q: But still Auschwitz succeeded in exterminating quite a number,
something like the millions, didn't they?

A: Yes.

Q: How many millions?

A: I again refer back to the statement made to me by Eichmann in March
or April, 1944, when he had to go and report to Reichfuehrer that his
office had turned over two and one-half million to the camp.

Q: To the Auschwitz area?

A: Yes.Q: Only in the Auschwitz area?

A: Yes.

Q: Two and one-half million, you say?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you [sic] you a little confused just now?

A: The reasons why I remember the number, two and one-half million, is
because it was repeatedly told to me that Auschwitz was to have
exterminated four to five million, but that was not so. We had an
order by the Reichsfuehrer of SS to destroy all materials in numbers
immediately, and not to preserve any records of the executions that
were being carried out.

Q: The two and one-half million were people delivered to Auschwitz,
were they the ones that were executed?

A: Executed and exterminated.

>> The evils were all
>> too, real: even greater is the evil of bearing false witness concerning
>> them...."
>
>Again restoring from the ellipses {p. 588}:
>
>"because that false witness will produce an even more vicious
>reality in the next upheaval. Men are now "reconciled" to a
>world where millions are murdered. What will be required in
>the way of action and propaganda next time?"
>
>
>{Now, with that addition of the *reason* for Rushdoony's
>objections to claims undocumented at the time they were
>made [Note the British trial evidence, and note also that
>evidence at the time a claim is made is what is under
>discussion.], is Rushdoony engaged in revisionism? Could

Yes. The typical game played is to use the Soviets against the Germans
and see who is worse. Playing games with works of fiction vs. real
testimony is another game revisionists play.

>Rushdoony be engaged in insisting that claims be limited
>to that that can be physically documented at the time the
>claims are made, instead?}

No, he's trivializing. Please visit:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/

http://www.holocaust-history.org/bolshevik-canard/

http://www.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/

http://www.nizkor.org/features/revision-or-denial/

About Dresden:

This is, by no means, an exhaustive analysis of the defects in the
arguments that Porter presents. There are similar defects in his
analysis of Regulations 25, 27, and 56 and Regulation 43. In the
former case, based upon his paraphrased version, Porter asserts that
the bombing of Dresden was improper. He failed to report or comment on
the provision of this Regulation which places an absolute duty to
indicate or mark such possible targets. In the case of a city, that
requires the declaration of a city as an "open city." This was not
done in any of the cases cited by Porter.

Porter's analysis of Regulation 43 - which, he states, mandates
cooperation with occupying powers - is based on his assumption that
the Hague Convention is the exclusive law covering what was done by
the Nazis during their occupation. Whatever the provisions of the
Hague Convention the valid laws of a sovereign entity can take a
rather jaundiced view of citizens who attach themselves to an invader
and engage - as was the case with the Nazi occupation - murder,
plunder, and treason. In fact, the prosecutions of collaborators were
not based on the Hague Convention but on national criminal law.

Porter also fails to state that such co-operation is dependent on the
acts of the occupying power being lawful. Regulations 48 and 49 - as
well as Regulation 43 - are clear that it is the affirmative duty of
the occupying power to administer the territory in a legimate manner.

Art. 48. If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the
taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall
do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules of
assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound
to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory
to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound.

Art. 49. If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article,
the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied
territory, this shall only be for the needs of the army or of the
administration of the territory in question.

It should require no reference to demonstrate that the Nazis did not
follow these requirements. They murdered, they plundered, and, in the
eastern territories, they attempted to eliminate and displace the
native population. As such the requirement for co-operation with
legitimate efforts to administer an occupied territory.

[snip]

>Rushdoony concluded the paragraph that contained this
>passage on Poncins with {p. 589}:
>
>"A liar is thus more dangerous than a theif: he destroys
>far more, and he lets loose greater evils."
>
>
>> Despite the ostensible compassion of this last phrase, these
>> passages comprise a striking addition to the canons of` Nazi apology. The
>> addition may be termed Holocaust reconstructionism: Jews were wrongfully
>> killed by Nazis; the number of victims was vastly inflated to shock a
>> desensitized modern world; the Nazis were therein victims of false witness;
>> false witness is punishable hy execution.

>Once again, what was Rushdoony's concluding sentence to
>this section? Was it not:
>
>"Rather, we must refuse to accord any lie the status of
>a privileged communication and must instead correct and/or
>rebuke the liar, and, if need be, expose his tactics."?

How does this change anything. It still assumes the liar.

>How is *this* a call for executions?

I thought he was justifying it under Mosaic law?

>To me, that reads like a call for verbal admonition. I
>suggest that Anti-Defamation League has made an error in
>their deduction.

Their deduction of what? They aren't my favorite group but they are
close to being on target.

Wayne

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis wrote in message <uMf8N9BLheOzLA...@4ax.com>...

>hmsc...@aol.comwwjd (HMSCLMom) wrote:
>
>>In article <FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>, Mike Curtis
>><mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
>>
>>>denying the
>>>holocaust is to me quite important
>>
>>Seems to me we gave it all the attention such a thought deserves. Little to
>>none. It is so ridiculous in the extreme that I saw no reason whatsoever to
>>address the kooks who would hold to this view.
>
>Seems that some of them are these separation of school and state
>folks. Fascinating.

Guilt by association -----------------
Interesting.

Wayne

PS --Holocaust revisionism and denial is serious. Your apparent need
to educate us on that is insulting. Go troll alt.nazi-homeschoolers.

Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/selah1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is."
---Ivan Illich in "Deschooling Society" 1970

watwinc

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:37fce708...@news.rcn.com...

> Mike Curtis wrote in message <uMf8N9BLheOzLA...@4ax.com>...
>
>
> >hmsc...@aol.comwwjd (HMSCLMom) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>, Mike Curtis
> >><mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
> >>
> >>>denying the
> >>>holocaust is to me quite important
> >>
> >>Seems to me we gave it all the attention such a thought deserves.
Little to
> >>none. It is so ridiculous in the extreme that I saw no reason
whatsoever to
> >>address the kooks who would hold to this view.
> >
> >Seems that some of them are these separation of school and state
> >folks. Fascinating.
>
> Guilt by association -----------------
> Interesting.
>
> Wayne
>
> PS --Holocaust revisionism and denial is serious. Your apparent need
> to educate us on that is insulting. Go troll alt.nazi-homeschoolers.

Check out Bruce Ray's postings in this thread ...

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"Lee (Booklover)" wrote:

> :::::blinking innocently:::::
> Hey MaG, is that fishing boat a trawler or a troller?

:::::Blinking vacantly:::::
I haven't a clue... I don't know anything
about fishing boats. I just tell stories.

MaG

>
>
> Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in
> message news:37FCBF68...@innova.net...
> > For those who don't understand this story as
> > anything other than a story, enjoy... read it to
> > your children, delete it, whatever.
> >
> > For anyone who wants to read this continuing
> > saga... read on.
> >

Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:

[]
> A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
> holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
> credibility.
>
> Fascinating.

And you are destroying the credibility you had with me. The conclusion
that you are drawing from the lack of response to your post shows a
lack of ability to reason from available data. I have only seen two
posters who have identified themselves as sympathetic to
Reconstructionism or defended it. This is insufficient grounds for
your comments. Even though you appear quite knowledgeable about
historical documents, I find myself unable to trust any of your
conclusions.

If you want to know why people didn't respond to your post, just ask.
Personally, I didn't respond because I thought you were trolling and
that is my SOP for trolls. There is no good reason to make
implications about how sympathetic we all are to holocaust
revisionism.

For the record:

I object to Reconstructionism.
I object to holocaust revisionism.
I object to your posts.

Jayne

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Wayne wrote:

> Guilt by association -----------------
> Interesting.
>

> PS --Holocaust revisionism and denial is serious. Your apparent need
> to educate us on that is insulting. Go troll alt.nazi-homeschoolers.

WAYNE! How many times do you have to be
told? It's "Here mannie, mannie, mannie."

MaG

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

x...@xxx.xxx (Wayne) wrote:

>Mike Curtis wrote in message <uMf8N9BLheOzLA...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>>hmsc...@aol.comwwjd (HMSCLMom) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>, Mike Curtis
>>><mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
>>>

>>>>denying the

>>>>holocaust is to me quite important
>>>
>>>Seems to me we gave it all the attention such a thought deserves. Little to
>>>none. It is so ridiculous in the extreme that I saw no reason whatsoever to
>>>address the kooks who would hold to this view.
>>
>>Seems that some of them are these separation of school and state
>>folks. Fascinating.
>

>Guilt by association -----------------
>Interesting.

The silence has been deafening.

>Wayne

>
>PS --Holocaust revisionism and denial is serious. Your apparent need
>to educate us on that is insulting. Go troll alt.nazi-homeschoolers.

Apparently there are those of you trying to defend it and Rushdoony.
Go figure. Glad your insulted. <smile>

Bruce D. Ray

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

In article <FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>, Mike Curtis

<mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:

> "Mike Marlow" <mike....@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message
> >news:o5L8N2khXvJUHN...@4ax.com...

> >> "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Guess that just goes to show that we all have our campaigns to wage, and
> >there is no need to believe that what is critically important to you is
> >equally important to everyone else.
>

> A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
> holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
> credibility.

Sorry that my work requires that I take so long in
researching where the excised quotes actually came
from and what went in the ellipses and in between
the excisions. In the list of priorities in my
life, this news group runs down around about number
25 or so.

Now, I do need to make a few points clear.

Do I believe that there was a Holocaust? Most certainly
I do. {As a personal note, two years ago, at my younger
nephew's _bar mitzvah_ in Cincinnati [a reform synagogue
because my sister was a non-Jew who married a man raised
an Orthodox Jew], he read from a Torah scroll that had
been rescued from a synagogue destroyed by the Nazis
[it was in Czechoslovakia, IIRC]. Furthermore, that
synagogue had a wall of rememberance on which the names
of ancestors and relatives who died in the Holocaust
were listed. [If I understand correctly, those are
common in synagogues, but I rather stand out like a
sore thumb [too tall, look like a goy, talk like a goy,
and act like a goy] in most synagogues.]}

Do I believe that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered by Nazis
in the Holocaust? Yes. Can I prove that figure in a
court of law beyond a reasonable doubt? Even today with
the opening of Soviet records, I cannot prove that figure
to even the criteria of preponderance of the evidence
required for civil suits. Then, I must restrict my
accusations to what I *can* prove to that criteria. Do
I believe that the physician cited by Rushdoony as suing
for libel in England actually performed 17,000 of these
so called experiments? A British court could not prove
that he did. Therefore, I *will* deliberately restrain
myself to those that can be proven. There is a difference
between belief and proof. The word "witness" carries
with it a requirement of proof and not just of belief.
To make an accusation requires a greater standard of
certitude.

Herein lies a particular difference, but it is not the
kind of difference that you *imagine*. The difference
is one of distinctions of a kind that some would claim
are quibbling. There is a distinction between believe
and prove. To me, that distinction is important. To me,
accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand more
than just that one believe them to be true. To me,
accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand that
one meet a standard of proof. Please note that I *did*
limit the applicability of this to accusations of guilt
or of complicity in evil.

Is it bad history to insist that with respect to accusations
of guilt or complicity in evil, *only* what can be proven to
at least the standard of a preponderance of the evidence *at
the time it is stated* be claimed? Is that revisionism?

Do I believe that Rushdoony denied, or even meant to deny
the holocaust? No, I do not. I do not even agree that
what Rushdoony *actually* wrote was Holocaust revisionism.
Furthermore, I do not agree that what Rushdoony *actually*
wrote in the section from which excerpts were excised called
for any executions at all. I believe that what Rushdoony
wrote about was the requirement for proof at least to the
standard of a preponderance of the evidence for accusations
of guilt or of complicity in evil. To me, there is a
significant difference.

I might point out here that there are teaching elders in
Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterian
Church, and Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
who are publicly avowed Reconstructionists. {IIRC, even
the mainline [i.e., National Council of Churches member]
Presbyterian Church in the USA has some publicly avowed
Reconstructionist pastors.} Each of these denominations
*does* take an anti-holocaust revisionism stance {along
with terming blasphemy [excommunicable] all of what is
called "Christian" Identity [there being nothing Christian
about that paricular perversion]}. Each of these
denominations *does* have a formal procedure to receive
complaints against teaching elders, to investigate and
ajudicate these complaints, and to remove and expel those
judged to have violated these standards. If Reconstructionism
actually *did* include holocaust revisionism, against
which these denominations have taken unambiguous stands,
why do these denominations have Reconstructionist teaching
elders? Why hasn't a single one of these Reconstructionist
elders in a single one of these denominations been at least
admonished, disciplined, and required to recant {and yes,
I do know that this has not happened}? In particular,
since the question of the status of Reconstructionism
with respect to ordination did arise in Presbyterian Church
in America, why hasn't a complaint about Reconstructionist
elders in Presbyterian Church in America been sustained?
Why hasn't Anti-defamation League filed such a complaint?
The only requirement is two witnesses. Why can D. James
Kennedy, a Presbyterian Church in America teaching elder,
term Rushdoony's work essential if Rushdoony's work
actually does engage in holocaust revisionism or denial?

John Decker

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

I'm beginning to really like this person. : ) (Jayne)

John

Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote:

> Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
>
> []

> > A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
> > holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
> > credibility.
> >

> > Fascinating.
>
> And you are destroying the credibility you had with me. The conclusion
> that you are drawing from the lack of response to your post shows a
> lack of ability to reason from available data. I have only seen two
> posters who have identified themselves as sympathetic to
> Reconstructionism or defended it. This is insufficient grounds for
> your comments. Even though you appear quite knowledgeable about
> historical documents, I find myself unable to trust any of your
> conclusions.
>
> If you want to know why people didn't respond to your post, just ask.
> Personally, I didn't respond because I thought you were trolling and
> that is my SOP for trolls. There is no good reason to make
> implications about how sympathetic we all are to holocaust
> revisionism.
>
> For the record:
>
> I object to Reconstructionism.
> I object to holocaust revisionism.
> I object to your posts.
>
> Jayne

--

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

br...@iupui.edu (Bruce D. Ray) wrote:

>Now, I do need to make a few points clear.
>
>Do I believe that there was a Holocaust? Most certainly
>I do.

[snipped for brevity]

>Do I believe that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered by Nazis
>in the Holocaust? Yes. Can I prove that figure in a
>court of law beyond a reasonable doubt? Even today with
>the opening of Soviet records, I cannot prove that figure
>to even the criteria of preponderance of the evidence
>required for civil suits.

The evidence doesn't need to be a court of law. In fact it would be
easier to prove in a court of law. Historically it has been done using
various methods and much comes from Nazi documents.

> Then, I must restrict my
>accusations to what I *can* prove to that criteria. Do
>I believe that the physician cited by Rushdoony as suing
>for libel in England actually performed 17,000 of these
>so called experiments? A British court could not prove
>that he did. Therefore, I *will* deliberately restrain
>myself to those that can be proven. There is a difference
>between belief and proof. The word "witness" carries
>with it a requirement of proof and not just of belief.
>To make an accusation requires a greater standard of
>certitude.

My understanding is that this applies to a novel. It isn't even a case
worthy of notice. You do not mention the name of the doctor. You do
not mention the name of his work. How much is missing here? Lots.

>Herein lies a particular difference, but it is not the
>kind of difference that you *imagine*. The difference
>is one of distinctions of a kind that some would claim
>are quibbling. There is a distinction between believe
>and prove. To me, that distinction is important. To me,
>accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand more
>than just that one believe them to be true. To me,
>accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand that
>one meet a standard of proof. Please note that I *did*
>limit the applicability of this to accusations of guilt
>or of complicity in evil.

In fact this paragraph says nothing at all. It is empty of specifics.

>Is it bad history to insist that with respect to accusations
>of guilt or complicity in evil, *only* what can be proven to
>at least the standard of a preponderance of the evidence *at
>the time it is stated* be claimed? Is that revisionism?

Depends on how vague you continue to be in your defense of Rushroony.

>Do I believe that Rushdoony denied, or even meant to deny
>the holocaust? No, I do not. I do not even agree that
>what Rushdoony *actually* wrote was Holocaust revisionism.

When one sets up doubts about numbers and then starts playing moral
equivalency games one is play holocaust denial.

>Furthermore, I do not agree that what Rushdoony *actually*
>wrote in the section from which excerpts were excised called
>for any executions at all. I believe that what Rushdoony
>wrote about was the requirement for proof at least to the
>standard of a preponderance of the evidence for accusations
>of guilt or of complicity in evil. To me, there is a
>significant difference.

Fine. We see it differently.

>The only requirement is two witnesses. Why can D. James
>Kennedy, a Presbyterian Church in America teaching elder,
>term Rushdoony's work essential if Rushdoony's work
>actually does engage in holocaust revisionism or denial?

Ask him?

Maybe like a certain minor candidate for presidency of the U. S. he is
in the dark also? Or is there more to it?

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by
mmalt) wrote:

>Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
>
>[]
>> A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
>> holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
>> credibility.
>>
>> Fascinating.
>
>And you are destroying the credibility you had with me.

Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I'm a little shocked with the
reconstructionist threads in the group. Sorry, if I generalized but I
wanted to get the knee jerk reaction from people here to see which way
this would go. It took a bit but I did succeed.

> The conclusion
>that you are drawing from the lack of response to your post shows a
>lack of ability to reason from available data. I have only seen two
>posters who have identified themselves as sympathetic to
>Reconstructionism or defended it.

That's is more than zero. You're right.

> This is insufficient grounds for
>your comments. Even though you appear quite knowledgeable about
>historical documents, I find myself unable to trust any of your
>conclusions.

LOL! LOL!

>If you want to know why people didn't respond to your post, just ask.
>Personally, I didn't respond because I thought you were trolling and
>that is my SOP for trolls. There is no good reason to make
>implications about how sympathetic we all are to holocaust
>revisionism.

LOL! Actually, I was educated about reconstructionism and was quite
surprised. I looked on the web site and found this home schooling
material all over it. It worried me a bit.

>For the record:
>
>I object to Reconstructionism.
>I object to holocaust revisionism.
>I object to your posts.

Tough. Kill file me.

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

John Decker wrote:

> I'm beginning to really like this person. : ) (Jayne)

I've always liked here, even when I didn't like
what she was saying. :) That's why I asked her
to join my club.
MaG

>
> John

>
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote:
>
> > Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
> >
> > []
> > > A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
> > > holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
> > > credibility.
> > >
> > > Fascinating.
> >

> > And you are destroying the credibility you had with me. The conclusion

> > that you are drawing from the lack of response to your post shows a
> > lack of ability to reason from available data. I have only seen two
> > posters who have identified themselves as sympathetic to

> > Reconstructionism or defended it. This is insufficient grounds for

> > your comments. Even though you appear quite knowledgeable about
> > historical documents, I find myself unable to trust any of your
> > conclusions.
> >

> > If you want to know why people didn't respond to your post, just ask.
> > Personally, I didn't respond because I thought you were trolling and
> > that is my SOP for trolls. There is no good reason to make
> > implications about how sympathetic we all are to holocaust
> > revisionism.
> >

> > For the record:
> >
> > I object to Reconstructionism.
> > I object to holocaust revisionism.
> > I object to your posts.
> >

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>> PS --Holocaust revisionism and denial is serious. Your apparent need
>> to educate us on that is insulting. Go troll alt.nazi-homeschoolers.
>

>Check out Bruce Ray's postings in this thread ...

That's what I saw. Also I may have over reacted to what I saw going on
in those reconstructionism threads. The subject of holocaust denial
hits pretty close to home with me. I was a member of two organizations
who refuted these denial folks all the time. So I don't take
hand-waving away very well. Also there is much concern in many groups
over what is going on in Europe at this time. There are several trials
in action in Great Britain and in Canada at this time.

I will apologize to those I may have generalized into a single basket.
I did it on purpose to see what kind of reaction I would get. What I
did get was mostly ad hominem attacks rather than the slightest bit of
concern. Sorry if that bothered me. It's a real history I'm very close
to. It concerns me how easily it is for a criminal government to take
advantage of the darker side of its citizenry. What was that book
called by Sinclair Lewis? It Can't Happen Here?

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

br...@iupui.edu (Bruce D. Ray) wrote:

This is fun about Dresden:
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Dresden/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

Let add a comment from:
http://www.netbistro.com/electriczen/revisionism.html

How to be a Holocaust Revisionist

[ . . .]

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of
testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony
about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have
recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses
are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE
of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged
sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other
revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an
individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look
bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but
that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the
question.

15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a
result of allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but
were sent to Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps
because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points
out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat
trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in
1942, ignore it.

John Decker

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Some member of the Douglas Family wrote:

> John Decker wrote:
>
> > I'm beginning to really like this person. : ) (Jayne)
>
> I've always liked here, even when I didn't like
> what she was saying. :) That's why I asked her
> to join my club.
> MaG
>
> >

I can't join, for one thing I'm not female (nor gay (hehe) thought that was
appropriate) and another- I missed entrance to the g.a.t.e. program in the
eighth grade by 12 points. Funny thing though, my scores are better as an
adult. So much for the consistency theory. and the um.....nevermind. : )

John

Lee (Booklover)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

John Decker <jde...@oio.net> wrote

> I'm beginning to really like this person. : ) (Jayne)

Beginning to?
Tsk.
I always have.

Jayne,
Go girl! :-D <------shoot -Mike- shoot!!!

Lee (Booklover)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in

message news:37FCE71F...@innova.net...

> "Lee (Booklover)" wrote:
>
> > :::::blinking innocently:::::
> > Hey MaG, is that fishing boat a trawler or a troller?
>
> :::::Blinking vacantly:::::
> I haven't a clue... I don't know anything
> about fishing boats. I just tell stories.

:::::spewing herbal tea all over the keyboard:::::
That was a whopper!!!

NB: no flames from the caffeine-addicts, I've got sore
throat/laryngitis and need the herbal tea and honey OK?

--
In Messiah,
Lee
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
".....maybe there is woe enough yet to come, though still hope may
seem bright."
--Galadriel

http://home-educate.com/ Home Sweet Home-School
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~

>

Mike Marlow

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in message

news:37FCA220...@innova.net...
> "David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:
>
> > Mike Curtis wrote in message ...

> > >
> > >I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
> >

> > Nope. Mike Curtis (that's you), Jalison and Watwinc all had a stab at
it.
> > No-one else was interested.
> >
> > If you want to get a thread going, try mentioning spam or bagpipes or
> > committees. Better yet, repost stuff from Alt.Humor - that is sure to
get a
> > rise :-)
>
> You forgot to mention our nonresident, irrelavant,
> nonRev... winter of discontent, FCS, tattoos,
> emoticons and brevity.
>
> MaG
> Anyone else have any topics to add?

Tailgate parties at Hamlet's house. Now that she's taken a wife, the
parties should take on a whole new dimension.

-Mike-
mike....@usa.net

Mike Marlow

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Hey look everyone - Mike Curtis learned something here!

-Mike-
mike....@usa.net

Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message

news:UaT8N5LL17poNbcFKm=gmbM...@4ax.com...
> "David W. Varidel (BD)" <dvar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> Btw, I know your ticked when you name a thread after me. this makes me
> the target and not the argument. It's ad hominem and juvenile. Good
> show!

Bill & Joi Ramey

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:12:02 -0500, Mike Curtis
<mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:

>Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>Let me give you a clue. I have found within my many years of refuting
>holocaust denial is that strong Christian groups are easily influenced
>by the myths of holocaust denial. They tend to pass pseudohistory off
>on their children as a part of home schooling. I've seen it happen in
>real life. I'm not generalizing I'm presenting a caution that doesn't
>seem to be taken very seriously here. Fishing stories are nice but
>they are meaningless when it comes to the truth of history which ought
>to be the concern here.
>
>
>Mike Curtis

And, pray tell, just exactly what would the truth of history be, in
terms of the holocaust? I've not been following all the threads in
this area, given that they are somewhat lengthy, sometimes pompous,
arrogant, and at times excruciatintly difficult to follow, but I'm
just curious as to what, exactly, the truth concerning the holocaust
would be and how you happened to stumble across it.

Anxiously awaiting your wisdom
Joi

Bill & Joi Ramey

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:37:36 -0400, Some member of the Douglas Family
<doug...@innova.net> wrote:

>"David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:
>
>> Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
>>
>> Nope. Mike Curtis (that's you), Jalison and Watwinc all had a stab at it.
>> No-one else was interested.
>>
>> If you want to get a thread going, try mentioning spam or bagpipes or
>> committees. Better yet, repost stuff from Alt.Humor - that is sure to get a
>> rise :-)
>
>You forgot to mention our nonresident, irrelavant,
>nonRev... winter of discontent, FCS, tattoos,
>emoticons and brevity.
>
>MaG
>Anyone else have any topics to add?
>

Breastfeeding is the only way to intelligence, prosperity, and is most
assuredly the path to heaven.

A Beka video instruction is the only way to assure your child has the
'proper' education.

Marrying someone of another race will send you straight to hell, do
not pass go, do not collect $200.00

Refusing to reveal your identity.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Anybody else remember
current topics of heated debate?

Mike Marlow

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Hey Joi - Wake Up!!!!!! I didn't write this crap - Mike Curtis did. Geeze,
what'd I ever do to you to deserve this slap? Geeze-oh-man, I can get
myself into enough messes without getting credit for dribble like this.

-Mike-
mike....@usa.net

I used to like this woman, but I clearly see that she has a darker side.

Bill & Joi Ramey <bill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8Qv9N8NMOr9vMo...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:12:02 -0500, Mike Curtis
> <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:
>

> >Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
> >

Lee (Booklover)

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:7tj17r$a56$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in
message
> news:37FCA220...@innova.net...

> > "David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:
> >
> > > Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
> > > >
> > > >I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
> > >
> > > Nope. Mike Curtis (that's you), Jalison and Watwinc all had a
stab at
> it.
> > > No-one else was interested.
> > >
> > > If you want to get a thread going, try mentioning spam or
bagpipes or
> > > committees. Better yet, repost stuff from Alt.Humor - that is
sure to
> get a
> > > rise :-)
> >
> > You forgot to mention our nonresident, irrelavant,
> > nonRev... winter of discontent, FCS, tattoos,
> > emoticons and brevity.
> >
> > MaG
> > Anyone else have any topics to add?
>

> Tailgate parties at Hamlet's house. Now that she's taken a wife,
the
> parties should take on a whole new dimension.

:::::spewing more herbal tea all over the keyboard and the monitor
too::::::

Grumbling as I clean it up: "Doggone that -Mike-! I just got the
last mess cleaned up! See if I send *him* any more emoticons for
target practice! Tsk."

--
In Messiah,
Lee
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
".....maybe there is woe enough yet to come, though still hope may
seem bright."
--Galadriel

http://home-educate.com/ Home Sweet Home-School
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~

>
> -Mike-
> mike....@usa.net
>
>
>
>

John Decker

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

I always knew that ,,, But I liked her anyway, or also ; )

Mike Marlow wrote:

--

Nancy Manos

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Okay now this question is for the regulars only please ... [folks like MaG,
Kanga, Jayne, Terry, BD, Mike Marlow, et all ... you know who you are!
<grin>]

I know I've been off-line for most of September and this probably accounts
for the majority of my confusion ... but can any of you tell me what's the
deal with folks like Mike Curtis, watwinc and jalison? I haven't seen much
that is either edifying, encouraging or even remotely relating to our
endeavors as home schooling parents from them. Am I missing something or
should I add these 3 to the same category with Jenny Harkins, Rev. Winter,
et al.???

I am not trying to be offensive or inflammatory in any way ... I just really
don't get it. Well, except for MaG's fishing story ... that I do get.
Actually, that probably answers my question here, doesn't it? <sheepish
grin>

Oh, one more important question for the regulars. I thought it was
supposed to be that if you ignored trolls they'd go away [another reference
to your fish story MaG] ... like fish who have nothing to bite on. If
that's the case, why are there often lengthy threads debating these sorts of
topics??

Call me perplexed.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone on this news group these days trying to
figure out what's real and good and edifying vs. what's nonsense or
strife-laden.

[do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do]

Do you hear music? Kind of creepy music? Twilight Zone music?
Help!!!

Thanks in advance for helping me get my bearings again.
Nancy

Nancy Manos

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Oh, I thought I'd add an apology in advance too. Maybe I haven't read far
enough or something to discover that these 3 really are home schoolers and
really are trying to be helpful. If I've misread and misjudged any of the
3, I do apologize and look forward to getting to know you better. [soft
smile]
Nancy

I wrote ...

Ladeebkwrm

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Nancy Manos wrote in message ...

>Okay now this question is for the regulars only please ... [folks like MaG,
>Kanga, Jayne, Terry, BD, Mike Marlow, et all ... you know who you are!
><grin>]
>

... but can any of you tell me what's the
>deal with folks like Mike Curtis, watwinc and jalison?

Well, you apparently didn't ask *me* (::::sniff::::), but I think you
answered your own question there, Nancy.

Peace,

Kristina (I know I haven't been around long enough to be an old timer, but
sheesh!)

Go Diamondbacks!

watwinc

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Bruce D. Ray <br...@iupui.edu> wrote in message
news:bray-07109...@physics.nmr.iupui.edu...

A British court does not *prove* anything. The defence in the case sought to
prove a limited number of instances which it felt it had sufficient evidence
to meet the burden of proof for that case. History is not bound by the
standard of proof required for a libel action in England (a country where
this is notoriously difficult to defend). I find this a most unreasonable
attitude.

> Herein lies a particular difference, but it is not the
> kind of difference that you *imagine*. The difference
> is one of distinctions of a kind that some would claim
> are quibbling. There is a distinction between believe
> and prove. To me, that distinction is important. To me,
> accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand more
> than just that one believe them to be true. To me,
> accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand that
> one meet a standard of proof. Please note that I *did*
> limit the applicability of this to accusations of guilt
> or of complicity in evil.

The question of the standard of proof becomes very relevant.

> Is it bad history to insist that with respect to accusations
> of guilt or complicity in evil, *only* what can be proven to
> at least the standard of a preponderance of the evidence *at
> the time it is stated* be claimed? Is that revisionism?

It can be, certainly - particularly if you rely on sources whose evidence
has been shown to be tainted and inaccurate.

> Do I believe that Rushdoony denied, or even meant to deny
> the holocaust? No, I do not. I do not even agree that
> what Rushdoony *actually* wrote was Holocaust revisionism.
> Furthermore, I do not agree that what Rushdoony *actually*
> wrote in the section from which excerpts were excised called
> for any executions at all. I believe that what Rushdoony
> wrote about was the requirement for proof at least to the
> standard of a preponderance of the evidence for accusations
> of guilt or of complicity in evil. To me, there is a
> significant difference.

I will have to leave further comment until I've read the book.

An excellent question. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

watwinc

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Bill & Joi Ramey <bill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8Qv9N8NMOr9vMo...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:12:02 -0500, Mike Curtis
> <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:
>
> >Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Mike Marlow wrote:
> >
> >Let me give you a clue. I have found within my many years of refuting
> >holocaust denial is that strong Christian groups are easily influenced
> >by the myths of holocaust denial. They tend to pass pseudohistory off
> >on their children as a part of home schooling. I've seen it happen in
> >real life. I'm not generalizing I'm presenting a caution that doesn't
> >seem to be taken very seriously here. Fishing stories are nice but
> >they are meaningless when it comes to the truth of history which ought
> >to be the concern here.
> >
> >
> >Mike Curtis
>
> And, pray tell, just exactly what would the truth of history be, in
> terms of the holocaust? I've not been following all the threads in
> this area, given that they are somewhat lengthy, sometimes pompous,
> arrogant, and at times excruciatintly difficult to follow, but I'm
> just curious as to what, exactly, the truth concerning the holocaust
> would be and how you happened to stumble across it.
>
> Anxiously awaiting your wisdom
> Joi

Well, this is rather like asking for "the truth concerning the Second World
War", isn't it? There's an awful lot of material out there, Joi, and Mike's
quoted a few paragraphs from it and cited a few URLs which have some
information. Mike didn't "stumble across" the truth - like me, he spent a
lot of time in Germany, where denying the truth of the Holocaust (the
historical facts) is a criminal offence - for good reason. You don't have to
go very far in Germany to run into the truth of the Holocaust. I lived in a
small village about 11 miles north of Frankfurt am Main. They'd just
finished restoring a half-timbered house there, which now has a plaque
noting that it used to be the home of the leader of the village Jews until
he and his family were deported and killed by his neighbours in 1945.
Deutsche Bank recently commissioned an official history, and the English
historian brought in to write it told them that the records - mostly
released by the Americans in the last ten years - showed clearly that the
bank's claims that it was innocent of knowingly receiving Jewish gold and
assets stripped from them "legally" by the Nazi government were nonsense.
Deutsche Bank, like other German banks and major industrial companies, was
an enthusiastic beneficiary of the Holocaust. Any time somebody denies the
truth, they're about to repeat some aspect of it - blaming Jews for
crucifying Christ, calling them unbelievers and trying to convert them on
their Holy Days (the ones prescribed by the Christian God in the Jew's Holy
Book) - and so it goes on.

Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

br...@iupui.edu (Bruce D. Ray) writes:

> In article <37fc250f...@news.pilot.infi.net>, jal...@pilot.infi.net
> wrote:
>
> And was quoting from __The religious Right: The Assault
> on Tolerance & Pluralism in America__, A publication of
> the Anti-Defamation League. (1994) pp 119-126:
>
>> What Mike quoted from is the following:
>
> I had some difficulty in finding where in Rushdoony
> that was quoted from. It does not show up indexed
> under the alleged topic of "false witness in a case
> involving a capital offense" because it does not
> contain anything about that at all. I am going to
> have to divide this into several posts as I get time
> over the next several weeks. I will note the pages
> from which the sections quoted were excised and the
> pages from which I add material that was excised.
> I will also fill in some ellipses. My page number
> citations are from:
>
> Rushdoony, R.J. (1973) __The Institutes of Biblical
> Law__ Presbyterian & Reformed, Philipsburg, NJ, LCC
> no. 72-79485.

Thanks for taking the time to fill in all the missing pieces. In
context, it seems much less like holocaust revisionism than the
Anti-Defamation League would have us believe. I may disagree with
Reconstructionism but I feel no need to "dig up dirt" on them. I
admire your courage in defending your beliefs in the face of Mike's
guilt by association tactics. I may disagree with you, Bruce, on many
points of theology, but I respect you.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

John Decker <jde...@oio.net> writes:

> I'm beginning to really like this person. : ) (Jayne)

I'm very glad to hear that. I've been hoping that we could put that
unpleasant incident behind us.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:

> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by

> mmalt) wrote:
>
>>Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
>>
>>[]

>>> A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
>>> holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
>>> credibility.
>>>

>>> Fascinating.
>>
>>And you are destroying the credibility you had with me.
>

> Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I'm a little shocked with the
> reconstructionist threads in the group. Sorry, if I generalized but I
> wanted to get the knee jerk reaction from people here to see which way
> this would go. It took a bit but I did succeed.

I don't appreciate people deliberately pushing my buttons. I was
raised in a Jewish family and am very sensitive on the topic of the
holocaust. If you hang around the newsgroups on which revisionism is
on topic, you may have encountered my cousin Danny engaged in refuting
revisionists.

I don't need you poking at me for a reaction. I already disagree with
Reconstructionism because it differs from my views on religious
pluralism. However, I have no intention of bashing them for your
entertainment. I am not convinced that your accusations of holocaust
revisionism are true and you have sufficiently destroyed your
credibility that I am not prepared to listen to you.

Jayne

watwinc

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Nancy Manos <nma...@az.rmci.net> wrote in message
news:ZV8L3.2158$34.1...@news21b.ispnews.com...

> Okay now this question is for the regulars only please ... [folks like
MaG,
> Kanga, Jayne, Terry, BD, Mike Marlow, et all ... you know who you are!
> <grin>]
>

It's been a long, hard summer, I gather. Let me see: I've been here for a
while (don't know how long you've been away, I don't recognise your name
either). It's up to the group (those who've read my postings, at least) to
decide if I've contributed anything "either edifying, encouraging or even
remotely relating to our endeavours as home schooling parents". If you want
to killfile me, that's your choice.

Bruce Ray made a number of claims months ago about the meaning of "pursuit
of happiness" which seemed most unlikely, and cited a list of references. I
asked Jim Alison as a specialist in the sources for that period for his
view, and he entered the discussion.

Things were fairly quiet for a while, then Gardiner posted this on the ng:
"A new American history textbook for home-schooling;
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html"
I knew Gardiner to be a very committed author, very selective in his
references and given to using alleged quotes which have been dismissed by
less polemic scholars. I suggested this would be a bad choice as a textbook
for homeschooling.
This launched the thread "An American history resource". Because of his
expertise in this area, Jim Alison contributed at length.
Deep into the thread, Julie A. Pascal raised the banner of "separation of
school and state", which took the thread in various directions, and also
spawned other threads.
One line of enquiry was economic (voucher schools), another constitutional
(which brought Jim Alison back in) and another historical - various people
claimed that public schools were not introduced into America until 1843. I
doubted this and suggested they would have been there under the British, Jim
Alison cited chunks of state constitutions showing that they were there in
the late 18th century, and finally Mike Curtis started a long and very
informative series of postings and references to source material and
standard reference works on the Colonial period.
In the course of all this, JRice mentioned Rushdoony's "Messianic character
of American education", and I asked (not quite guilelessly) if the
scholarship was of the same standard as Rushdoony's "Institutes of Biblical
Law". This opened the floodgates to the current discussions of
Reconstructionism, which then took us into Holocaust revisionism.
Now read on. (Or not - up to you.)

Nancy Manos

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Kristina,
You are too funny ... that's why I included "et al" ... you notice JRice's
name is absent and Wayne and Marty and on and on ... I just listed the first
few I thought of based on whose names I'd read the most today =)

The others may have been mentioned by name, but YOU get to come to my house
next week ... see ... you are special too!! =)
Nancy

Ladeebkwrm wrote >

Bruce D. Ray

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

In article <OMxMrwRE$GA.293@cpmsnbbsa02>, "watwinc"
<wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:

> Bruce D. Ray <br...@iupui.edu> wrote in message
> news:bray-07109...@physics.nmr.iupui.edu...
> > In article <FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>, Mike Curtis
> > <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:
> >
> > > "Mike Marlow" <mike....@usa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message
> > > >news:o5L8N2khXvJUHN...@4ax.com...
> > > >> "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Guess that just goes to show that we all have our campaigns to wage,
> and
> > > >there is no need to believe that what is critically important to you is
> > > >equally important to everyone else.
> > >
> > > A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
> > > holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
> > > credibility.

{my introductory snipped}

This is a quite new concept to me. You see, in US
jurisprudence, one has standards of proof. In a US
court, for a criminal conviction, one must be proven
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in theory.
In a US court, for a civil judgment, one must prove
something by a preponderance of the evidence. This
is a lesser standard than the reasonable doubt standard,
but the effects of a verdict {at least in theory} do
not infringe on either one's life or one's liberty,
unlike the case with a criminal conviction. In theory
at least, a US court judgment *does* show that somebody
*did* prove something. At least, that's how court
function used to be taught in US civics in southwestern
Pennsylvania in the '40's and '50's. Why would it
occur to most US citizens that British courts would be
any different?

> The defence in the case sought to
> prove a limited number of instances which it felt it had sufficient evidence
> to meet the burden of proof for that case. History is not bound by the
> standard of proof required for a libel action in England (a country where
> this is notoriously difficult to defend). I find this a most unreasonable
> attitude.

I did not claim that *history* was bound by anything.
I *did* claim that *I* am bound by the requirement
that *I* not engage in malicious gossip, slander, or
the like to restrain *my* words with respect to accusations
of guilt or of complicity in evil to that which can be
proven. There is quite a large difference between a
claim that *history* is bound and my claim the *I* am
bound. I hope that you can see that difference.

As an aside, I wonder how I failed to be clear enough
that you could so mistake my meaning as I think that
you have from what you write here. Of course, in every
exchange with you, I've been left scratching my head
as to how I seem from what I read of yours to have
managed to persuade you that I meant things I neither
meant, nor saw in what I wrote, nor even now see in
what I wrote. I am quite concerned about this problem.
Quite often I read a reply of yours {and not just when
its a reply to me} and wonder what gave rise to that
kind of response. Can you give me some explanation
of this?

> > Herein lies a particular difference, but it is not the
> > kind of difference that you *imagine*. The difference
> > is one of distinctions of a kind that some would claim
> > are quibbling. There is a distinction between believe
> > and prove. To me, that distinction is important. To me,
> > accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand more
> > than just that one believe them to be true. To me,
> > accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand that
> > one meet a standard of proof. Please note that I *did*
> > limit the applicability of this to accusations of guilt
> > or of complicity in evil.
>
> The question of the standard of proof becomes very relevant.

What standard of proof do you suggest be used when
statements *do* involve accusations of guilt or of
complicity in evil?

Malicious gossip, slander, and the like are very real
problems of vast importance. The tongue {a synechdoche
for all means of communication}, mine especially, *is*
a world of evil {see Jas. 3:6}. Placing it in restraints,
mine especially, *is* of utmost importance.

> > Is it bad history to insist that with respect to accusations
> > of guilt or complicity in evil, *only* what can be proven to
> > at least the standard of a preponderance of the evidence *at
> > the time it is stated* be claimed? Is that revisionism?
>
> It can be, certainly - particularly if you rely on sources whose evidence
> has been shown to be tainted and inaccurate.

If the sources were so shown to be tainted and inaccurate
*at the time they were relied upon*, and if it can also
be shown that one was aware that the sources had been shown
to be tainted and inaccurate *at the time they were relied
upon*, and if it can further be shown that the sources one
relied upon were not being used as *hostile witnesses*, then,
yes, that would be revisionism and that would be bad history.
Had Rushdoony's sources been shown to be tainted and inaccurate
*at the time he relied on them*? Has it been shown that
Rushdoony was aware that these sources had been shown to be
tainted and inaccurate *at the time he relied on them*?

{section snipped}

No, I cannot enlighten anyone on why Anti-defamation League
never has filed a complaint against the Reconstructionist
teaching elders in any of the denominations named. I am
puzzled at that curious lack of what I would consider to be
the obvious action. Some of these teaching elders from the
named denominations even appeared on the segment dedicated
to Reconstructionism of a Bill Moyers PBS special on religion.
They are publicly known. Anti-defamation League ought to
have their names and denominational affiliations already.
These denominations do have addresses. Submitting a written
letter of charges with list of witnesses to those charges,
remembering that two witnesses are required, would seem simple
enough to me. It hasn't been done. Anti-defamation League
hasn't filed any complaint with Presbyterian Church in America
about D. James Kennedy's endorsment of Rushdoony's __Institutes__.
I simply do not know why. Perhaps those with some connection
to Anti-defamation League could inquire there. I certainly
do not have any insight into their apparent failure to act.
It would seem to me that if they have the requisite witnesses,
and they ought to if they are going to publish accusatory
materials, they should submit the written letter of charges
with list of witnesses. Let justice take its course within
the courts of these denominations.

{N.B., Presbyterianism runs as a system of what we term
courts of the church. These courts of the church ajudicate
cases and causes. As courts, they cannot act unless a case
or cause is presented before them. This is a limitation of
a court system, but the advantage is the great degree of
diffusion of power among the elected ruling elders and the
teaching elders of each local church.}

Mike Marlow

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Well Nancy, you really haven't missed too much. The threads have gotten
quite distorted from their original scope, as outlined in watwinc's reply to
you. So, for the sake of the history buffs out there, the record is pretty
straight now with regard to the life progression of these threads, but at
the end of the day, I'm not sure anyone has benefited much by all the gas
that's been expelled in these threads. So - like I said - you didn't miss
much.

-Mike-
mike....@usa.net

Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

"Nancy Manos" <nma...@az.rmci.net> writes:

> Okay now this question is for the regulars only please ... [folks like MaG,
> Kanga, Jayne, Terry, BD, Mike Marlow, et all ... you know who you are!
> <grin>]
>
> I know I've been off-line for most of September and this probably accounts
> for the majority of my confusion ... but can any of you tell me what's the
> deal with folks like Mike Curtis, watwinc and jalison? I haven't seen much
> that is either edifying, encouraging or even remotely relating to our
> endeavors as home schooling parents from them. Am I missing something or
> should I add these 3 to the same category with Jenny Harkins, Rev. Winter,
> et al.???

[]

Well, watwinc is our beloved Paul Deneher (sp?) who changed ISPs so
his name doesn't show any more, which is why I've forgotten how to
spell it. Paul does homeschool and often posts helpful, on-topic
stuff. I like him very much even though we disagree on how these
recent threads have unfolded. As for Mike Curtis and jalison, they
did not seem like trolls at first. They seemed like knowledgeable
people who could direct us to history resources. However,
communication has broken down and animosity has developed. I am
reluctant to assign blame. Probably everyone involved contributed
to some degree or other.

Jayne

Ladeebkwrm

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Actually, I need to add to my previous post on this subject. I personally
have found watwinc's (aka Paul Danaher) posts to be interesting and
informative, even if I don't always agree with him. I also think he is
willing to actually debate issues.

Peace,

Kristina (taking my foot out of my mouth now)

Go Diamondbacks!

Ladeebkwrm

unread,

Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99

to

Nancy Manos wrote in message ...

>The others may have been mentioned by name, but YOU get to come to my house

>next week ... see ... you are special too!! =)
>Nancy
>

NA NA NA NA NA NA! LOL. I know what you meant, Nancy, I just couldn't
resist. Sorry. The silliness just overwhelms me at times.

Peace,

Kristina (they're coming to take me away, haha heehee hoho)

Go Diamondbacks!

David W. Varidel (BD)

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>

>I've had my own thread several times. Many from when I was a sysop on
>Compuserve. I'm not easily buzzed. I know the game you are playing.

.... and am I winning?

David W. Varidel
dvar...@optusnet.com.au
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~dvaridel
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

"Not on my watch....."

BOB!! Williams

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Mike,

Put down the gun. I don't think Joi was blaming you for this one. Look at
her post again. It looks to me like she was merely copying the badly clipped
post that Mike Curtis made. If you really want to take issue with someone,
take it with him. He's the one who clipped your words from MaG's post,
without clipping the "> Mike Marlow wrote".

Regards,

BOB!!

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> Hey Joi - Wake Up!!!!!! I didn't write this crap - Mike Curtis did. Geeze,
> what'd I ever do to you to deserve this slap? Geeze-oh-man, I can get
> myself into enough messes without getting credit for dribble like this.
>
> -Mike-
> mike....@usa.net
>
> I used to like this woman, but I clearly see that she has a darker side.
>

Terry Walters

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

In article <ZV8L3.2158$34.1...@news21b.ispnews.com>, "Nancy Manos" <nma...@az.rmci.net> wrote:
>Okay now this question is for the regulars only please ... [folks like MaG,
>Kanga, Jayne, Terry, BD, Mike Marlow, et all ... you know who you are!
><grin>]

Well, to be quite honest, I don't really feel like a regular any more (a large, maybe <grin>)
since I've been spending so little time here.

>I know I've been off-line for most of September and this probably accounts
>for the majority of my confusion ... but can any of you tell me what's the
>deal with folks like Mike Curtis, watwinc and jalison? I haven't seen much
>that is either edifying, encouraging or even remotely relating to our
>endeavors as home schooling parents from them. Am I missing something or
>should I add these 3 to the same category with Jenny Harkins, Rev. Winter,
>et al.???

I've been wondering the same thing. I've read only a couple of posts from
most of the current threads, and found nothing to entice me to read further,
and it's gotten to the point where I find myself checking the message headers,
to see if this person or that is actually being dragged to m.e.h-s.c. by cross
posted messages.

Sorry I can't help, I'm as confoozed as you. Hey, look! Over there, isn't that
Rod Serling?

Terry

--

Terry Walters

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

In article <tgr9N+7E0xOZOB=SW+B6u...@4ax.com>, Bill & Joi Ramey <bill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Breastfeeding is the only way to intelligence, prosperity, and is most
>assuredly the path to heaven.

Yikes! I don't breastfeed, and I wasn't breastfed... although -- no, never mind.

>A Beka video instruction is the only way to assure your child has the
>'proper' education.

Yikes again!

>Marrying someone of another race will send you straight to hell, do
>not pass go, do not collect $200.00

I can tell I'm in some serious trouble here.

>Refusing to reveal your identity.

Yours In Christ,
an...@anon.com

--

Hamlet!

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message news:7tj17r$a56$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in message
> news:37FCA220...@innova.net...
> > "David W. Varidel (BD)" wrote:
> >

> > > Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
> > > >

> > > >I place this thread here and it dies. How fascinating.
> > >

> > > Nope. Mike Curtis (that's you), Jalison and Watwinc all had a stab at
> it.
> > > No-one else was interested.
> > >
> > > If you want to get a thread going, try mentioning spam or bagpipes or
> > > committees. Better yet, repost stuff from Alt.Humor - that is sure to
> get a
> > > rise :-)
> >
> > You forgot to mention our nonresident, irrelavant,
> > nonRev... winter of discontent, FCS, tattoos,
> > emoticons and brevity.
> >
> > MaG
> > Anyone else have any topics to add?
>
> Tailgate parties at Hamlet's house. Now that she's taken a wife, the
> parties should take on a whole new dimension.
>

> -Mike-
> mike....@usa.net
>

<Hamlet! chuckles to self> Well don't expect too much dimension......!!!!!!!!
Dang Nabit that woman is a real slacker....!!!!!! <Hamlet! mutters under breath>
Think she'd see her way clear to free me up for more
important tasks.....like participating in the NG.....<sadly Hamlet! shakes head>
YO!!!!.....wifeypoo!!!!!......move that dresser a little more to the right.......
Another cup of Java!!!!!! IYDM....
HAY....YOOOU! Keep those kids quiet.....!!!!!
Isn't Supper ready YET????..........<ggggrrrruuumble>
<Hamlet! looks all around....scowls>
Hmmmm.......now where did that gal get too?
<Hamlet! perplexed look>......Hmmmm......
Off to another one of those ra-sen-frat-en tailgate parties again......
Guess I better get up and go check the driveway........

.........................Hamlet! ;c)

>
>
>

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by
mmalt) wrote:

>Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
>
>> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by
>> mmalt) wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> writes:
>>>
>>>[]

>>>> A group that seems to be a topic of defense here is denying the
>>>> holocaust is to me quite important. This goes directly to historical
>>>> credibility.
>>>>

>>>> Fascinating.
>>>
>>>And you are destroying the credibility you had with me.
>>
>> Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I'm a little shocked with the
>> reconstructionist threads in the group. Sorry, if I generalized but I
>> wanted to get the knee jerk reaction from people here to see which way
>> this would go. It took a bit but I did succeed.
>
>I don't appreciate people deliberately pushing my buttons. I was
>raised in a Jewish family and am very sensitive on the topic of the
>holocaust. If you hang around the newsgroups on which revisionism is
>on topic, you may have encountered my cousin Danny engaged in refuting
>revisionists.

Danny Keren? We've met.

>I don't need you poking at me for a reaction. I already disagree with
>Reconstructionism because it differs from my views on religious
>pluralism. However, I have no intention of bashing them for your
>entertainment.

It's not about entertainment. You vastly misunderstand.

> I am not convinced that your accusations of holocaust
>revisionism are true and you have sufficiently destroyed your
>credibility that I am not prepared to listen to you.

Whatever.

Mike Curtis

Please visit:

Write to time...@flash.net for the Rat Pack LIVE
Show at the 500 Club in Atlantic City in 1962. A 4am
morning show! $19.95 Compact Disc called RAT PACK UNCENSORED

http://www.jay-mar.com/stores.html
http://www.abebooks.com
http://www.bibliofind.com

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Hey there BOB!! I was wondering if you were
still hanging around. Did you like my fish stories?

MaG

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

"Lee (Booklover)" wrote:

> doug...@innova.net> wrote...
> > "Lee (Booklover)" wrote:
> >
> > > :::::blinking innocently:::::
> > > Hey MaG, is that fishing boat a trawler or a troller?
> >
> > :::::Blinking vacantly:::::
> > I haven't a clue... I don't know anything
> > about fishing boats. I just tell stories.
>
> :::::spewing herbal tea all over the keyboard:::::
> That was a whopper!!!

Sorry about the tea... at least it's easier to clean
off than oatmeal. I usually eat my breakfast and
read the ng.

What exactly do you mean by 'whopper'?
Does that mean I was very funny :) or do
you think I was lying :( when I said I don't
know anything about fishing boats?

MaG

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

In England it doesn't matter if what you say is true you can still win
a libel case. That is one way in which our systems differ.

> In a US
>court, for a criminal conviction, one must be proven
>guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in theory.
>In a US court, for a civil judgment, one must prove
>something by a preponderance of the evidence. This
>is a lesser standard than the reasonable doubt standard,
>but the effects of a verdict {at least in theory} do
>not infringe on either one's life or one's liberty,
>unlike the case with a criminal conviction. In theory
>at least, a US court judgment *does* show that somebody
>*did* prove something. At least, that's how court
>function used to be taught in US civics in southwestern
>Pennsylvania in the '40's and '50's. Why would it
>occur to most US citizens that British courts would be
>any different?

It wouldn't because American aren't taught very well about these
matters. They aren't taught very well at all when legal matters come
into play.

[snip]

>> The question of the standard of proof becomes very relevant.
>
>
>What standard of proof do you suggest be used when
>statements *do* involve accusations of guilt or of
>complicity in evil?

>Malicious gossip, slander, and the like are very real
>problems of vast importance. The tongue {a synechdoche
>for all means of communication}, mine especially, *is*
>a world of evil {see Jas. 3:6}. Placing it in restraints,
>mine especially, *is* of utmost importance.

Since this is the holocaust we are speaking of I would think you might
have some examples?

>> > Is it bad history to insist that with respect to accusations
>> > of guilt or complicity in evil, *only* what can be proven to
>> > at least the standard of a preponderance of the evidence *at
>> > the time it is stated* be claimed? Is that revisionism?
>>
>> It can be, certainly - particularly if you rely on sources whose evidence
>> has been shown to be tainted and inaccurate.
>
>
>If the sources were so shown to be tainted and inaccurate
>*at the time they were relied upon*, and if it can also
>be shown that one was aware that the sources had been shown
>to be tainted and inaccurate *at the time they were relied
>upon*, and if it can further be shown that the sources one
>relied upon were not being used as *hostile witnesses*, then,
>yes, that would be revisionism and that would be bad history.
>Had Rushdoony's sources been shown to be tainted and inaccurate
>*at the time he relied on them*?

Yup. David Irving's stuff, for one, have always been shown to be
inaccurate at the time they were written.

> Has it been shown that
>Rushdoony was aware that these sources had been shown to be
>tainted and inaccurate *at the time he relied on them*?

We'll have to ask him.

[snip]

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Bill & Joi Ramey <bill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:12:02 -0500, Mike Curtis
><mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:
>
>>Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>Let me give you a clue. I have found within my many years of refuting
>>holocaust denial is that strong Christian groups are easily influenced
>>by the myths of holocaust denial. They tend to pass pseudohistory off
>>on their children as a part of home schooling. I've seen it happen in
>>real life. I'm not generalizing I'm presenting a caution that doesn't
>>seem to be taken very seriously here. Fishing stories are nice but
>>they are meaningless when it comes to the truth of history which ought
>>to be the concern here.
>>
>>
>>Mike Curtis
>
>And, pray tell, just exactly what would the truth of history be, in
>terms of the holocaust? I've not been following all the threads in
>this area, given that they are somewhat lengthy, sometimes pompous,
>arrogant, and at times excruciatintly difficult to follow, but I'm
>just curious as to what, exactly, the truth concerning the holocaust
>would be and how you happened to stumble across it.

Born in Germany. Didn't have to stumble across it. What I did stumble
across was holocaust denial which shocked me. The truth about the
holocaust begins in 1933 end "ends" in 1945. Then moves on through to
today historiographically. The truth involves 12 million innocents
murdered by the Nazis in various programs for the same basic reasons.
The Nazis saw them as genetically inferior.

watwinc

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message

news:7tjl09$704$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> Well Nancy, you really haven't missed too much. The threads have gotten
> quite distorted from their original scope, as outlined in watwinc's reply
to
> you. So, for the sake of the history buffs out there, the record is
pretty
> straight now with regard to the life progression of these threads, but at
> the end of the day, I'm not sure anyone has benefited much by all the gas
> that's been expelled in these threads. So - like I said - you didn't miss
> much.
>
> -Mike-
> mike....@usa.net

I don't think anybody has benefited from the gas, but there has been a *lot*
of solid new information plus a stream of references to the literature. C.
S. Lewis (who gets mentioned here periodically) would have banged a few
heads together over the lack of imagination some of us have shown in
approaching earlier times!

> Nancy Manos <nma...@az.rmci.net> wrote in message
> news:ZV8L3.2158$34.1...@news21b.ispnews.com...

> > Okay now this question is for the regulars only please ... [folks like
> MaG,
> > Kanga, Jayne, Terry, BD, Mike Marlow, et all ... you know who you are!
> > <grin>]
> >

> > I know I've been off-line for most of September and this probably
accounts
> > for the majority of my confusion ... but can any of you tell me what's
the

> > deal with folks like Mike Curtis, watwinc and jalison? I haven't seen

> much
> > that is either edifying, encouraging or even remotely relating to our
> > endeavors as home schooling parents from them. Am I missing something
or
> > should I add these 3 to the same category with Jenny Harkins, Rev.
Winter,
> > et al.???
> >

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>"I haven't seen much that is either edifying, encouraging or even remotely
>relating to our
>endeavors as home schooling parents from them. Am I missing something or
>should I add these 3 to the same category with Jenny Harkins, Rev. Winter,
>et al.???"
>

>It's been a long, hard summer, I gather. Let me see: I've been here for a
>while (don't know how long you've been away, I don't recognise your name
>either). It's up to the group (those who've read my postings, at least) to
>decide if I've contributed anything "either edifying, encouraging or even
>remotely relating to our endeavours as home schooling parents". If you want
>to killfile me, that's your choice.

I always thought education was an endeavor for home schooling parents.

>Bruce Ray made a number of claims months ago about the meaning of "pursuit
>of happiness" which seemed most unlikely, and cited a list of references. I
>asked Jim Alison as a specialist in the sources for that period for his
>view, and he entered the discussion.

Gary Wills and another historian suggest reading

[ . . .] His choice of words "pursuit of happiness" over John Locke's
"property" marked a sharp break with the Whig doctrine of English
middle-class property rights. is a section from Randall's biography of
Jefferson.

But the phrase was taken from the philosophy of Francis Hutchinsen. If
you want more information on this work and the others I'll gather up
the citations and present them here.

>One line of enquiry was economic (voucher schools), another constitutional
>(which brought Jim Alison back in) and another historical - various people
>claimed that public schools were not introduced into America until 1843. I
>doubted this and suggested they would have been there under the British, Jim
>Alison cited chunks of state constitutions showing that they were there in
>the late 18th century, and finally Mike Curtis started a long and very
>informative series of postings and references to source material and
>standard reference works on the Colonial period.

Jim asked me to come in because of my knowledge in this area.

>In the course of all this, JRice mentioned Rushdoony's "Messianic character
>of American education", and I asked (not quite guilelessly) if the
>scholarship was of the same standard as Rushdoony's "Institutes of Biblical
>Law". This opened the floodgates to the current discussions of
>Reconstructionism, which then took us into Holocaust revisionism.

Yeah, I always fall into traps when I get into holocaust revisionism.
I really hate that word used in that way. It is the choice of the
deniers. Historical revisionism is a legitimate goal. The deniers are
not doing revisionism. They aren't offering a new history of what did
happen. Rather they are picking at the history and trying to find
things wrong with it. It like saying the battle at the Alamo didn't
happen because there wasn't 5000 Mexican troops there! So all these
people who wrote that are liars. That's the kind of stuff that goes
on.

>Now read on. (Or not - up to you.)

Exactly.

Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to jay...@mmalt.guild.org

Emailed too (if this works). Jaynek wrote:

> "Nancy Manos" <nma...@az.rmci.net> writes:
>
> > Okay now this question is for the regulars only please ... [folks like MaG,
> > Kanga, Jayne, Terry, BD, Mike Marlow, et all ... you know who you are!
> > <grin>]
>
> > I know I've been off-line for most of September and this probably accounts
> > for the majority of my confusion ... but can any of you tell me what's the

> > deal with folks like Mike Curtis, watwinc and jalison? I haven't seen much

> > that is either edifying, encouraging or even remotely relating to our
> > endeavors as home schooling parents from them. Am I missing something or
> > should I add these 3 to the same category with Jenny Harkins, Rev. Winter,
> > et al.???

> []
>
> Well, watwinc is our beloved Paul Deneher (sp?) who changed ISPs so
> his name doesn't show any more, which is why I've forgotten how to
> spell it. Paul does homeschool and often posts helpful, on-topic
> stuff. I like him very much even though we disagree on how these
> recent threads have unfolded. As for Mike Curtis and jalison, they
> did not seem like trolls at first. They seemed like knowledgeable
> people who could direct us to history resources. However,
> communication has broken down and animosity has developed. I am
> reluctant to assign blame. Probably everyone involved contributed
> to some degree or other.

Could be their both knowledgeable *and* out to stir up trouble.
Good think I've never done that... _________________Marty

P.S. "Danaher", I think.

Hope this works--I can't get at my email server, even though I
think I've seen a few outbound messages at least posted, a few
days ago.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts <alac...@csi.com> wrote:

>Emailed too (if this works). Jaynek wrote:
>
>> "Nancy Manos" <nma...@az.rmci.net> writes:
>>
>> > Okay now this question is for the regulars only please ... [folks like MaG,
>> > Kanga, Jayne, Terry, BD, Mike Marlow, et all ... you know who you are!
>> > <grin>]
>>
>> > I know I've been off-line for most of September and this probably accounts
>> > for the majority of my confusion ... but can any of you tell me what's the
>> > deal with folks like Mike Curtis, watwinc and jalison? I haven't seen much
>> > that is either edifying, encouraging or even remotely relating to our
>> > endeavors as home schooling parents from them. Am I missing something or
>> > should I add these 3 to the same category with Jenny Harkins, Rev. Winter,
>> > et al.???
>> []
>>
>> Well, watwinc is our beloved Paul Deneher (sp?) who changed ISPs so
>> his name doesn't show any more, which is why I've forgotten how to
>> spell it. Paul does homeschool and often posts helpful, on-topic
>> stuff. I like him very much even though we disagree on how these
>> recent threads have unfolded. As for Mike Curtis and jalison, they
>> did not seem like trolls at first. They seemed like knowledgeable
>> people who could direct us to history resources. However,
>> communication has broken down and animosity has developed. I am
>> reluctant to assign blame. Probably everyone involved contributed
>> to some degree or other.
>
>Could be their both knowledgeable *and* out to stir up trouble.

Goodness. Correcting misconceptions about American history is stirring
up trouble? Wow.

Fascinating.

Hamlet!

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in message news:37FDDFD6...@innova.net...

:::::::::::::::laughing hysterically::::::::::::::

@@@@@OTFLMHO.......

Hmmm........ Whopper!!!!.....
Hold the pickles.....Hold the lettuce.......
Special orders don't upset us.......
all we ask is that you lettuce........have fries with that!!!!!

BTW........Loved the Fish story MaG.........

Another Trawl Tale!!!!!!!!<vbg>

.......................Hamlet!

>
> MaG
>
>

Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> writes:

[]

> I don't think anybody has benefited from the gas, but there has been a *lot*
> of solid new information plus a stream of references to the literature. C.
> S. Lewis (who gets mentioned here periodically) would have banged a few
> heads together over the lack of imagination some of us have shown in
> approaching earlier times!

[]

I did not notice anyone lacking imagination. However, I, too, found
myself thinking of Lewis's comments on how to approach history
during this thread. (Your description of your experiences at school
also reminded me of how Lewis described his. It's easy to get me to
think about C.S. Lewis.) One quote of Mike's (that he posted twice)
especially reminded me of this. I have long been aware of the need
to approach the past on its own terms so that this just seemed like
stating the obvious. I suppose I felt a bit insulted that Mike was
presenting this as if it were a startling new idea.

Jayne

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by
mmalt) wrote:

You seem to have thin skin. I posted it because the majority 95% of
the people I meet both at the college level and in general cannot seem
to deal with history in this manner. Another thing to note is that I
didn't point that post to you but to another individual. I think you
need to take a step back and realize that you are not the only one
posting in this group.

watwinc

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt <jay...@spambait.guild.org>
wrote in message news:kqiTFF...@mmalt.guild.org...

> "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> writes:
>
> []
> > I don't think anybody has benefited from the gas, but there has been a
*lot*
> > of solid new information plus a stream of references to the literature.
C.
> > S. Lewis (who gets mentioned here periodically) would have banged a few
> > heads together over the lack of imagination some of us have shown in
> > approaching earlier times!
> []
>
> I did not notice anyone lacking imagination.

Maybe I'm lacking experience and imagination here ... It's difficult
sometimes, coming from another culture which seemed so similar.

> However, I, too, found
> myself thinking of Lewis's comments on how to approach history
> during this thread. (Your description of your experiences at school
> also reminded me of how Lewis described his. It's easy to get me to
> think about C.S. Lewis.) One quote of Mike's (that he posted twice)
> especially reminded me of this. I have long been aware of the need
> to approach the past on its own terms so that this just seemed like
> stating the obvious. I suppose I felt a bit insulted that Mike was
> presenting this as if it were a startling new idea.

I think Mike was stressing this because he felt people were failing to do
this adequately.

> Jayne
>

watwinc

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message

news:0DP+N3aF+yXXQr...@4ax.com...
> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by

> mmalt) wrote:
>
> >"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> writes:
> >
> >[]
> >> I don't think anybody has benefited from the gas, but there has been a
*lot*
> >> of solid new information plus a stream of references to the literature.
C.
> >> S. Lewis (who gets mentioned here periodically) would have banged a few
> >> heads together over the lack of imagination some of us have shown in
> >> approaching earlier times!
> >[]
> >

> >I did not notice anyone lacking imagination. However, I, too, found

> >myself thinking of Lewis's comments on how to approach history
> >during this thread. (Your description of your experiences at school
> >also reminded me of how Lewis described his. It's easy to get me to
> >think about C.S. Lewis.) One quote of Mike's (that he posted twice)
> >especially reminded me of this. I have long been aware of the need
> >to approach the past on its own terms so that this just seemed like
> >stating the obvious. I suppose I felt a bit insulted that Mike was
> >presenting this as if it were a startling new idea.
>

> You seem to have thin skin. I posted it because the majority 95% of
> the people I meet both at the college level and in general cannot seem
> to deal with history in this manner. Another thing to note is that I
> didn't point that post to you but to another individual. I think you
> need to take a step back and realize that you are not the only one
> posting in this group.
>
>
> Mike Curtis

As a cultural point, Mike, people here do post as if we were talking to each
other over the back fence. I haven't been here that long, but I've never
seen such a series of extended and nested threads before. Usually a thread
here is more like a kaffeeklatsch!

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:

I never make those assumptions in any news group. I try not to
specifically address all when I'm addressing one or a few. I see news
groups like a party. People gather in groups and take part in
discussions with those in that group. Other discussions are going on
elsewhere. If a discussion is going on and someone suddenly shows up
and says they are insulted by something that was said, and act like
they were the target, I think that thoughts of this person's paranoia
might enter into the heads of those actually involved in the
discussion.

I have been ignoring several threads in this group and probably will
not pop in even if I'm mentioned. I also do not go around being
insulted all the time either.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt <jay...@spambait.guild.org>
>wrote in message news:kqiTFF...@mmalt.guild.org...

>> "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> writes:
>>
>> []
>> > I don't think anybody has benefited from the gas, but there has been a
>*lot*
>> > of solid new information plus a stream of references to the literature.
>C.
>> > S. Lewis (who gets mentioned here periodically) would have banged a few
>> > heads together over the lack of imagination some of us have shown in
>> > approaching earlier times!
>> []
>>
>> I did not notice anyone lacking imagination.
>

>Maybe I'm lacking experience and imagination here ... It's difficult
>sometimes, coming from another culture which seemed so similar.
>

>> However, I, too, found
>> myself thinking of Lewis's comments on how to approach history
>> during this thread. (Your description of your experiences at school
>> also reminded me of how Lewis described his. It's easy to get me to
>> think about C.S. Lewis.) One quote of Mike's (that he posted twice)
>> especially reminded me of this. I have long been aware of the need
>> to approach the past on its own terms so that this just seemed like
>> stating the obvious. I suppose I felt a bit insulted that Mike was
>> presenting this as if it were a startling new idea.
>

>I think Mike was stressing this because he felt people were failing to do
>this adequately.

Some people. Probably the specific person I was speaking to. Now I
posted this paragraph generally. I received no responses generally. I
don't know that I was presenting it as a startling idea. I was
presenting it as an historical method. Also I'd never seen my feelings
so well put into words by another person before.

Startling, naa. New idea, naaa. Wasn't there.

This is more of Jayne reading into things that aren't there.

Some member of the Douglas Family

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

"Hamlet!" wrote:

{{{{{{Hamlet!}}}}}}}

It's so good to see you around here again!

Did Floyd get to you or are you just laying low
and letting your "unschooled brats" run too loose.
(Reference to and earlier thread, in case you
missed it I'm not really refering to your kids as
brats.)

MaG

Mike Marlow

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Silly boy - there's no gun....it's archery season. Gun doesn't start until
the 21st.

-Mike-
mike....@usa.net

BOB!! Williams <en...@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:37FD6E05...@pinn.net...

> Mike,
>
> Put down the gun. I don't think Joi was blaming you for this one. Look
at
> her post again. It looks to me like she was merely copying the badly
clipped
> post that Mike Curtis made. If you really want to take issue with
someone,
> take it with him. He's the one who clipped your words from MaG's post,
> without clipping the "> Mike Marlow wrote".
>
> Regards,
>
> BOB!!
>
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >
> > Hey Joi - Wake Up!!!!!! I didn't write this crap - Mike Curtis did.
Geeze,
> > what'd I ever do to you to deserve this slap? Geeze-oh-man, I can get
> > myself into enough messes without getting credit for dribble like this.
> >

> > -Mike-
> > mike....@usa.net
> >
> > I used to like this woman, but I clearly see that she has a darker side.
> >

> > Bill & Joi Ramey <bill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:8Qv9N8NMOr9vMo...@4ax.com...

> > > On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:12:02 -0500, Mike Curtis
> > > <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Mike Marlow wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Let me give you a clue. I have found within my many years of refuting
> > > >holocaust denial is that strong Christian groups are easily
influenced
> > > >by the myths of holocaust denial. They tend to pass pseudohistory off
> > > >on their children as a part of home schooling. I've seen it happen in
> > > >real life. I'm not generalizing I'm presenting a caution that doesn't
> > > >seem to be taken very seriously here. Fishing stories are nice but
> > > >they are meaningless when it comes to the truth of history which
ought
> > > >to be the concern here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Mike Curtis
> > >
> > > And, pray tell, just exactly what would the truth of history be, in
> > > terms of the holocaust? I've not been following all the threads in
> > > this area, given that they are somewhat lengthy, sometimes pompous,
> > > arrogant, and at times excruciatintly difficult to follow, but I'm
> > > just curious as to what, exactly, the truth concerning the holocaust
> > > would be and how you happened to stumble across it.
> > >

Mike Marlow

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

...and by the way - i was only funning with joi - i saw how the whole thing
unfolded. i'm sure ('cause i've seen joi in action - it can be scary!),
that she knew i was funnin'.....right joi.......joi?.....joi?????

-Mike-
mike....@usa.net

now joi - be nice - put that pan down - joi! - joi! -

Susan

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message

news:7tltid$267$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> ...and by the way - i was only funning with joi - i saw how the whole
thing
> unfolded. i'm sure ('cause i've seen joi in action - it can be scary!),
> that she knew i was funnin'.....right joi.......joi?.....joi?????
>
> -Mike-
> mike....@usa.net
>
> now joi - be nice - put that pan down - joi! - joi! -
>

What is scary is -Mike- with any weapon in his hand...

--
@}-`-,-- @}-`-,-- @}-`-,-- @}-`-,-- @}-`-,--
ICQ #39572982 AOL IM "susgeek"
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

Mike Marlow

unread,

Oct 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/8/99

to

Susan <susa...@hotmail.comma> wrote in message
news:PrwL3.2820$7K4....@typ11a.deja.bcandid.com...

> Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:7tltid$267$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > ...and by the way - i was only funning with joi - i saw how the whole
> thing
> > unfolded. i'm sure ('cause i've seen joi in action - it can be scary!),
> > that she knew i was funnin'.....right joi.......joi?.....joi?????
> >
> > -Mike-
> > mike....@usa.net
> >
> > now joi - be nice - put that pan down - joi! - joi! -
> >
>
> What is scary is -Mike- with any weapon in his hand...
>

...or Susan in a "Men Working" zone.

-Mike-
mike....@usa.net

Stainless Steel Streetrat

unread,

Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99

to

In article <rvquh7...@corp.supernews.com>, twal...@txcr.net (Terry
Walters) writes:

>I've been wondering the same thing. I've read only a couple of posts from
>most of the current threads, and found nothing to entice me to read further,
>and it's gotten to the point where I find myself checking the message
>headers,
>to see if this person or that is actually being dragged to m.e.h-s.c. by
>cross
>posted messages.
>
>

Well, I know Alberto was dragged in from misc.education...

-----------------------------
Stainless Steel Streetrat

"*Living* is the best revenge" - Conan the Barbarian
-----------------------
Ultimate Guide to Christian Resources: Homeschooling
http://members.aol.com/stretrat/homeschool/states.html

watwinc

unread,

Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99

to

"The road to Auschwitz was built by hate but paved by indifference" Ian
Kershaw

Bruce D. Ray <br...@iupui.edu> wrote in message
news:bray-07109...@physics.nmr.iupui.edu...
> In article <OMxMrwRE$GA.293@cpmsnbbsa02>, "watwinc"
> <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Bruce D. Ray <br...@iupui.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bray-07109...@physics.nmr.iupui.edu...
> > > In article <FZ38NxRQJKa1uH...@4ax.com>, Mike Curtis
> > > <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:
> > >

> > > > "Mike Marlow" <mike....@usa.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote in message

Too tall?

> > >
> > > Do I believe that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered by Nazis
> > > in the Holocaust? Yes. Can I prove that figure in a
> > > court of law beyond a reasonable doubt? Even today with
> > > the opening of Soviet records, I cannot prove that figure
> > > to even the criteria of preponderance of the evidence
> > > required for civil suits. Then, I must restrict my
> > > accusations to what I *can* prove to that criteria. Do
> > > I believe that the physician cited by Rushdoony as suing
> > > for libel in England actually performed 17,000 of these
> > > so called experiments? A British court could not prove
> > > that he did. Therefore, I *will* deliberately restrain
> > > myself to those that can be proven. There is a difference
> > > between belief and proof. The word "witness" carries
> > > with it a requirement of proof and not just of belief.
> > > To make an accusation requires a greater standard of
> > > certitude.
> >
> > A British court does not *prove* anything.
>
> This is a quite new concept to me. You see, in US

> jurisprudence, one has standards of proof. In a US

> court, for a criminal conviction, one must be proven
> guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in theory.
> In a US court, for a civil judgment, one must prove
> something by a preponderance of the evidence. This
> is a lesser standard than the reasonable doubt standard,
> but the effects of a verdict {at least in theory} do
> not infringe on either one's life or one's liberty,
> unlike the case with a criminal conviction. In theory
> at least, a US court judgment *does* show that somebody
> *did* prove something. At least, that's how court
> function used to be taught in US civics in southwestern
> Pennsylvania in the '40's and '50's. Why would it
> occur to most US citizens that British courts would be
> any different?

Fine - you're ignorant of English jurisprudence. So why do you feel the need
to explain US forensic standards of proof? FYI I've been the interpreter of
record in a number of US cases of international dimensions. In any case, a
court (US or English) doesn't prove anything, it tries a case. The legal
rules of evidence are very specific - they differ from one jurisdiction to
another. Particularly in a libel case in the UK the burden of proof is very
heavy on the defence, and it was even heavier at the time of that trial.
It's been years since I read "QB VII" (which I loathed), but I think Uris
spent some time making this point at length. History does not apply either
the "beyond all reasonable doubt" or the "balance of doubt" standard, nor
does it engage in complicated ritual dances about what constitutes
admissible evidence. Does the name "O J Simpson" ring any bells?

> > The defence in the case sought to
> > prove a limited number of instances which it felt it had sufficient
evidence
> > to meet the burden of proof for that case. History is not bound by the
> > standard of proof required for a libel action in England (a country
where
> > this is notoriously difficult to defend). I find this a most
unreasonable
> > attitude.
>
> I did not claim that *history* was bound by anything.
> I *did* claim that *I* am bound by the requirement
> that *I* not engage in malicious gossip, slander, or
> the like to restrain *my* words with respect to accusations
> of guilt or of complicity in evil to that which can be
> proven. There is quite a large difference between a
> claim that *history* is bound and my claim the *I* am
> bound. I hope that you can see that difference.

Nobody's asking you to engage in any of these. I can't understand why you
could possibly imagine that accepting the claims of the more reputable
historians and official agencies over refuted Holocaust deniers opens you up
to a libel suit.

> As an aside, I wonder how I failed to be clear enough
> that you could so mistake my meaning as I think that
> you have from what you write here. Of course, in every
> exchange with you, I've been left scratching my head
> as to how I seem from what I read of yours to have
> managed to persuade you that I meant things I neither
> meant, nor saw in what I wrote, nor even now see in
> what I wrote. I am quite concerned about this problem.
> Quite often I read a reply of yours {and not just when
> its a reply to me} and wonder what gave rise to that
> kind of response. Can you give me some explanation
> of this?

Since I feel the same about your responses - no. You don't usually answer my
questions, and the statements I get back often deal at great length with
some aspect I considered of minimal importance or relevance. I have no sense
of dialogue at all.

> > > Herein lies a particular difference, but it is not the
> > > kind of difference that you *imagine*. The difference
> > > is one of distinctions of a kind that some would claim
> > > are quibbling. There is a distinction between believe
> > > and prove. To me, that distinction is important. To me,
> > > accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand more
> > > than just that one believe them to be true. To me,
> > > accusations of guilt or of complicity in evil demand that
> > > one meet a standard of proof. Please note that I *did*
> > > limit the applicability of this to accusations of guilt
> > > or of complicity in evil.

Again, I find myself shaking my head in bewilderment. Nobody's asking you to
make any accusations at all. Again, I'm waiting for the Rushdoony book to
arrive to see what he writes.

> > The question of the standard of proof becomes very relevant.
>
> What standard of proof do you suggest be used when
> statements *do* involve accusations of guilt or of
> complicity in evil?
>
> Malicious gossip, slander, and the like are very real
> problems of vast importance. The tongue {a synechdoche
> for all means of communication}, mine especially, *is*
> a world of evil {see Jas. 3:6}. Placing it in restraints,
> mine especially, *is* of utmost importance.
>

> > > Is it bad history to insist that with respect to accusations
> > > of guilt or complicity in evil, *only* what can be proven to
> > > at least the standard of a preponderance of the evidence *at
> > > the time it is stated* be claimed? Is that revisionism?
> >
> > It can be, certainly - particularly if you rely on sources whose
evidence
> > has been shown to be tainted and inaccurate.
>
> If the sources were so shown to be tainted and inaccurate
> *at the time they were relied upon*, and if it can also
> be shown that one was aware that the sources had been shown
> to be tainted and inaccurate *at the time they were relied
> upon*, and if it can further be shown that the sources one
> relied upon were not being used as *hostile witnesses*, then,
> yes, that would be revisionism and that would be bad history.
> Had Rushdoony's sources been shown to be tainted and inaccurate

> *at the time he relied on them*? Has it been shown that

> Rushdoony was aware that these sources had been shown to be
> tainted and inaccurate *at the time he relied on them*?
>

> {section snipped}
>
> > > I might point out here that there are teaching elders in
> > > Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterian
> > > Church, and Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
> > > who are publicly avowed Reconstructionists. {IIRC, even
> > > the mainline [i.e., National Council of Churches member]
> > > Presbyterian Church in the USA has some publicly avowed
> > > Reconstructionist pastors.} Each of these denominations
> > > *does* take an anti-holocaust revisionism stance {along
> > > with terming blasphemy [excommunicable] all of what is
> > > called "Christian" Identity [there being nothing Christian
> > > about that paricular perversion]}. Each of these
> > > denominations *does* have a formal procedure to receive
> > > complaints against teaching elders, to investigate and
> > > ajudicate these complaints, and to remove and expel those
> > > judged to have violated these standards. If Reconstructionism
> > > actually *did* include holocaust revisionism, against
> > > which these denominations have taken unambiguous stands,
> > > why do these denominations have Reconstructionist teaching
> > > elders? Why hasn't a single one of these Reconstructionist
> > > elders in a single one of these denominations been at least
> > > admonished, disciplined, and required to recant {and yes,
> > > I do know that this has not happened}? In particular,
> > > since the question of the status of Reconstructionism
> > > with respect to ordination did arise in Presbyterian Church
> > > in America, why hasn't a complaint about Reconstructionist
> > > elders in Presbyterian Church in America been sustained?
> > > Why hasn't Anti-defamation League filed such a complaint?
> > > The only requirement is two witnesses. Why can D. James
> > > Kennedy, a Presbyterian Church in America teaching elder,
> > > term Rushdoony's work essential if Rushdoony's work
> > > actually does engage in holocaust revisionism or denial?
> >
> > An excellent question. Perhaps you can enlighten us?
>
> No, I cannot enlighten anyone on why Anti-defamation League
> never has filed a complaint against the Reconstructionist
> teaching elders in any of the denominations named. I am
> puzzled at that curious lack of what I would consider to be
> the obvious action. Some of these teaching elders from the
> named denominations even appeared on the segment dedicated
> to Reconstructionism of a Bill Moyers PBS special on religion.
> They are publicly known. Anti-defamation League ought to
> have their names and denominational affiliations already.
> These denominations do have addresses. Submitting a written
> letter of charges with list of witnesses to those charges,
> remembering that two witnesses are required, would seem simple
> enough to me. It hasn't been done. Anti-defamation League
> hasn't filed any complaint with Presbyterian Church in America
> about D. James Kennedy's endorsment of Rushdoony's __Institutes__.
> I simply do not know why. Perhaps those with some connection
> to Anti-defamation League could inquire there. I certainly
> do not have any insight into their apparent failure to act.
> It would seem to me that if they have the requisite witnesses,
> and they ought to if they are going to publish accusatory
> materials, they should submit the written letter of charges
> with list of witnesses. Let justice take its course within
> the courts of these denominations.
>
> {N.B., Presbyterianism runs as a system of what we term
> courts of the church. These courts of the church ajudicate
> cases and causes. As courts, they cannot act unless a case
> or cause is presented before them. This is a limitation of
> a court system, but the advantage is the great degree of
> diffusion of power among the elected ruling elders and the
> teaching elders of each local church.}

The history of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue doesn't encourage
confidence in such internal procedures. As a matter of interest, has the
Presbyterian Church in America or its Reconstructionist elders issued any
resounding denunciations of (say) Pat Robertson's anti-Semitic statements?

> --
> Warning to commercial e-mailers {spammers}: The e-mail
> address provided above is for information purposes only
> and is subjected to extensive e-mail filtering. Do not
> send unsolicited commercial e-mail to this address.

Nancy Manos

unread,

Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99

to

Stainless Steel Streetrat wrote

>Well, I know Alberto was dragged in from misc.education...
>

Couldn't we get some sort of an invisible fence system? LOL!!

Nancy

I know, I know, I need to behave myself better ... it's a good thing I have
that sequined asbestos suit hanging in my closet =D

Douglas and Sarah Sommerville

unread,

Oct 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/9/99

to

watwinc wrote:

> [a whole bunch deleted]

>
> The history of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue doesn't encourage
> confidence in such internal procedures. As a matter of interest, has the
> Presbyterian Church in America or its Reconstructionist elders issued any
> resounding denunciations of (say) Pat Robertson's anti-Semitic statements?
>

Maybe these anti-Semitic statements have not been brought to the attention of
the PCA. What statements in particular were you referring to?

Douglas Sommerville