Borowski
John S Moore
Tadensz Borowski. I've just read his collection of stories, 'This way
for the gas Ladies and Gentlemen', about his time as an inmate in
Auschwitz and Birkenau. He describes mass gassings as part of everyday
life in the camp. He is an extremely good writer. He must have known
what he was talking about. As an Aryan, he was not liable for gassing.
Those who believe there was a 'holohoax' must surely assign him a very
big part in its inception.
CuriousGeorge613
he gassed himself to death by putting his head in an oven.
I recommend this book extraordinarily highly. It demonstrates brilliantly the
dichotomy between Jews and non-Jews in the camps.
Final note: Philip Roth was instrumental in getting the book published in
English.
John S Moore
David Gehrig
>
> I'd still like to hear the revisionist perspective on him. Any takers?
>
> John S Moore wrote:
>
> > I'm curious to hear the revisonist line on the Polish writer of genius
> > Tadensz Borowski. I've just read his collection of stories, 'This way
> > for the gas Ladies and Gentlemen', about his time as an inmate in
> > Auschwitz and Birkenau. He describes mass gassings as part of everyday
> > life in the camp. He is an extremely good writer. He must have known
> > what he was talking about. As an Aryan, he was not liable for gassing.
> > Those who believe there was a 'holohoax' must surely assign him a very
> > big part in its inception.
Try searching one of the denier sites. Real deniers don't like to post
here, since it means their arguments are subjected to actual scrutiny.
@%<
John S Moore
David Gehrig
>
> I thought this was the place. Who does post here then, if not real deniers?
Wannabe deniers -- generally, folks too far in the dark to form any kind of
argument making any sort of reference to the details of the historical record.
So they take one of three tactics: they either abandon the pretense of
scholarship and are right up front about their antisemitism, they make
pseudometahyperarguments about metapseudoarguments about meta-arguments about
arguments and thereby pretend they're contributing something of value, or they
repost the same pre-chewed crap over and over and ignore the responses.
There was a time, I'm told, when the leading revisionists did actually post
here, but they took so many spankings that they fled, usually to their own
self-controlled sandboxes like the CODOH BBS, where failing to toe the
revisionist party line gets you bumped from the board, on whatever pretext the
moderator invents at the moment.
This movement away from open discussion was a tacet confession that their
arguments don't stand up.
Now, there are some revisionists who actually do try to make an argument here,
but they're far from the stars of the movement (if the movement has any stars)
and they get drubbed in a hurry by those who know the material better. They also
have a tendency to go make unmistakeably antisemitic comments when they go
off on a tangent.
@%<
david.e.michael
David Gehrig wrote:
> John S Moore wrote:
> >
> > I thought this was the place. Who does post here then, if not real deniers?
>
> Wannabe deniers -- generally, folks too far in the dark to form any kind of
> argument making any sort of reference to the details of the historical record.
> So they take one of three tactics: they either abandon the pretense of
> scholarship and are right up front about their antisemitism,
True in a few cases. However, let it be noted that some of these posters are almost
certainly anti-revisionists who are simply attempting to make revisionism look
silly. The most obvious example of this is the so-called 'Mad Revisionist' who
justifies this dishonest tactic by describing it as 'parody'. However, there are
some more sinister cases. For example there is the infamous confession by Michael
Ragland posted on 30 January 2000: 'I must admit I have at times done revisionist
postings to confuse others and help the anti-revisionist side. How so, well I've
stated the Nazis killed millions of Jews but Hitler didn't know about it! I realize
that by acknowledging the Nazis killed millions of Jew, even if I have demonstrated
there is no proof Hitler knew
about the extermination, I have caused some damage to revisionists.'
Then we have some 'rabid anti-Semites' (to use Dr Keren's favourite phrase) who are
fairly obviously 'plants'. Richard Phillips, for example, purports to have Jewish
ancestors and to have lived in Israel, yet may be found advocating National
Socialism and arguing that the Japanese should have been nuclear bombed for no other
reason than they were Japanese. Obviously a plant.
> they make
> pseudometahyperarguments about metapseudoarguments about meta-arguments about
> arguments and thereby pretend they're contributing something of value,
In other words we try to discuss things like what actually constitutes acceptable
'evidence' of a particular historical event. The effect of this sort of argument on
the average anti-revisionist might be compared to the effect of salt on a slug.
> or they
> repost the same pre-chewed crap over and over and ignore the responses.
>
This technique was, in fact, perfected by Dr Daniel Keren, the arch anti-revisionist
poster. Except that he doesn't always ignore responses -- sometimes he calls you
rude names for even *daring* to respond.
>
> There was a time, I'm told, when the leading revisionists did actually post
> here, but they took so many spankings that they fled,
Translation: Bradley Smith got sick of being abused when attempting to make his
case, so he set up an alternative forum where abuse was not allowed.
> usually to their own
> self-controlled sandboxes like the CODOH BBS, where failing to toe the
> revisionist party line gets you bumped from the board,
There is, of course, no such party and no such line, and some quite interesting
discussions take place there -- but Mr Gehrig will not permit small considerations
like truthfulness to spoil a good story.
> on whatever pretext the
> moderator invents at the moment.
>
> This movement away from open discussion was a tacet confession that their
> arguments don't stand up.
>
It was, in fact, nothing of the kind. It was a recognition that there was a
concerted campaign to prevent open discussion in forums such as alt.revisionism.
>
> Now, there are some revisionists who actually do try to make an argument here,
> but they're far from the stars of the movement (if the movement has any stars)
> and they get drubbed in a hurry by those who know the material better.
Another anti-revisionist using the Saddam Hussein definition of 'glorious victory'.
> They also
> have a tendency to go make unmistakeably antisemitic comments when they go
> off on a tangent.
>
Translation: from time to time they get involved in discussions about Jews. If they
dare utter one breath of criticism, they are then vilified as 'rabid' antisemites.
>
> @%<
>
Another thoroughly dishonest post from Mr Gehrig.
>
> > David Gehrig wrote:
> >
> > > John S Moore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd still like to hear the revisionist perspective on him. Any takers?
> > > >
> > > > John S Moore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm curious to hear the revisonist line on the Polish writer of genius
> > > > > Tadensz Borowski. I've just read his collection of stories, 'This way
> > > > > for the gas Ladies and Gentlemen', about his time as an inmate in
> > > > > Auschwitz and Birkenau. He describes mass gassings as part of everyday
> > > > > life in the camp. He is an extremely good writer. He must have known
> > > > > what he was talking about. As an Aryan, he was not liable for gassing.
> > > > > Those who believe there was a 'holohoax' must surely assign him a very
> > > > > big part in its inception.
> > >
> > > Try searching one of the denier sites. Real deniers don't like to post
> > > here, since it means their arguments are subjected to actual scrutiny.
> > >
> > > @%<
David
The Mad Revisionist
david.e...@variousisps.co.uk wrote:
> True in a few cases. However, let it be noted that some of these
posters are almost
> certainly anti-revisionists who are simply attempting to make
revisionism look
> silly. The most obvious example of this is the so-called 'Mad
Revisionist' who
> justifies this dishonest tactic by describing it as 'parody'.
Another lie from Nizkor plant David Michael. Unless he's willing to
cite where I have described my "tactic" as "parody".
He's just trying to avoid having to dispute my air-tight arguments
demonstrating reasonable doubt regarding the evidence proving the Irish
Potato Famine.
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Potato/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
Well, Dr. Michael, can you dispute my facts or not?
--
THE MAD REVISIONIST
We do not recruit, we convince
Truth has no need for coercion
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Gehrig
>
> In article <3931A7FE...@variousisps.co.uk>,
> david.e...@variousisps.co.uk wrote:
>
> > True in a few cases. However, let it be noted that some of these
> posters are almost
> > certainly anti-revisionists who are simply attempting to make
> revisionism look
> > silly. The most obvious example of this is the so-called 'Mad
> Revisionist' who
> > justifies this dishonest tactic by describing it as 'parody'.
>
> Another lie from Nizkor plant David Michael. Unless he's willing to
> cite where I have described my "tactic" as "parody".
>
> He's just trying to avoid having to dispute my air-tight arguments
> demonstrating reasonable doubt regarding the evidence proving the Irish
> Potato Famine.
>
> http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Potato/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
>
> Well, Dr. Michael, can you dispute my facts or not?
No, but he'll give you a hell of a metahyperpseudoargument, and
then low like a sick cow when you aren't impressed by his woven smoke.
@%<
Derek Bell
: True in a few cases. However, let it be noted that some of these posters are
: almost certainly anti-revisionists who are simply attempting to make
: revisionism look silly. The most obvious example of this is the so-called
: 'Mad Revisionist' who justifies this dishonest tactic by describing it as
: 'parody'.
The 'Mad Revisionist' is plainly satirising the arguments of deniers
by applying them to patently silly cases. Parody is a legitimate form of
commentary.
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
CuriousGeorge613
"The 'Mad Revisionist' is plainly satirising the arguments of deniers by
applying them to patently silly cases. Parody is a legitimate form of
commentary."
Parody? Next you'll be telling me all about your country's supposed "potato
famine." Let's hear it, Paddy!
John S Moore
of them fetch me the revisionist line on Borowski? I'm genuinely curious, but I don't
want to go to the trouble myself of searching all the sites. I dont't think I should
need to. If Borowski was telling the truth, there definitely were mass gassings at
Birkenau. If there were not, then he must have been lying. I'd like to know the argument
that supports that thesis.
"david.e.michael" wrote:
> David Gehrig wrote:
>
> > John S Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought this was the place. Who does post here then, if not real deniers?
> >
> > Wannabe deniers -- generally, folks too far in the dark to form any kind of
> > argument making any sort of reference to the details of the historical record.
> > So they take one of three tactics: they either abandon the pretense of
> > scholarship and are right up front about their antisemitism,
>
> True in a few cases. However, let it be noted that some of these posters are almost
> certainly anti-revisionists who are simply attempting to make revisionism look
> silly. The most obvious example of this is the so-called 'Mad Revisionist' who
CuriousGeorge613
david.e.michael
John S Moore wrote:
> If Gehring's wrong,
He is.
> and the revisionists here really are people of substance,
We are not.
> could one
> of them fetch me the revisionist line on Borowski?
There is no such thing as 'the revisionist line'. However I suggest that you direct your
enquiry to Greg Raven or Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review.
<snip, to keep Dr Maddison happy>
David
CuriousGeorge613
and
Mark "I edited a neo-Nazi newsletter" Weber
david.e.michael
CuriousGeorge613 wrote:
Now is Curious George going to give us the quotes in full?
Or is he just out to smear?
David
CuriousGeorge613
http://corax.org/revisionism/misc/smear1.html
On Weber, see his associate Bradley Smith's "defense" of Weber's neo-Nazism:
http://codoh.com/bones/bbnatur.html
Both men, btw, were hired by Willis Carto, whose anti-Semitism is legendary.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20000530213016...@ng-fo1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 31 May 2000 01:30:16 GMT, curiousg...@aol.com
(CuriousGeorge613) wrote:
>http://corax.org/revisionism/misc/smear1.html
>http://codoh.com/bones/bbnatur.html
Interesting that he raised his hand to little Paloma for taking a
different view of history.
If you can't stand to read Bradley's wallowing mass of self-indulgent
prose, he tells the story of little Paloma's thought crime at the end
of the essay.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOTR5GjfbIykA6SysEQLMwgCghT3D7LnyNTWqRnpj3NSx5oDsVisAoKKH
xv8ArVvjMKYwBC0NBhWselFE
=vC5U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
david.e.michael
CuriousGeorge613 wrote:
> On Raven see (his own words, from his own website):
>
> http://corax.org/revisionism/misc/smear1.html
>
> On Weber, see his associate Bradley Smith's "defense" of Weber's neo-Nazism:
>
> http://codoh.com/bones/bbnatur.html
>
> Both men, btw, were hired by Willis Carto, whose anti-Semitism is legendary.
What is the current state of relations between these men and Mr Carto and why?
David
Philip Mathews
>david.e.michael" david.e...@variousisps.co.uk wrote:
Well, here's one Raven quote:
" My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am not
interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying breath. I will
say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater than
Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader
of our century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was
perfect, but he was about the best thing that could have happened
to Germany."
And here's another Raven quote.
"Jew-boy Daniel Keren wrote:"
As Moran would say, "be these the revisionists of substance you had in mind?"
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson
CuriousGeorge613
org. of IHR and the Noontide Press, which publishes the *Protocols*) and was
sued by Raven, Weber, and others.
Ultimately, Carto was forced out of the IHR offices at gunpoint. What a motley
crew.
David Gehrig
>
> John S Moore wrote:
>
>
> He is.
>
> > and the revisionists here really are people of substance,
>
No argument there.
@%<
david.e.michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In >Message-id: <39345EED...@variousisps.co.uk>
>
> >david.e.michael" david.e...@variousisps.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> >CuriousGeorge613 wrote:
> >
> >> That's Greg "Hitler was a great man" Raven
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> Mark "I edited a neo-Nazi newsletter" Weber
> >
> >Now is Curious George going to give us the quotes in full?
> >
> >Or is he just out to smear?
>
> Well, here's one Raven quote:
>
> " My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am not
> interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying breath. I will
> say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater than
> Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader
> of our century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was
> perfect, but he was about the best thing that could have happened
> to Germany."
What did you leave out? The '...' (which should have been '. . .') suggests that
you don't want us to see part of what he actually said.
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <393489D4...@variousisps.co.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Wed,
31 May 2000 04:41:08 +0100, "david.e.michael"
<david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>Philip Mathews wrote:
[snip]
>> Well, here's one Raven quote:
>> " My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am not
>> interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying breath. I will
>> say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater than
>> Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader
>> of our century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was
>> perfect, but he was about the best thing that could have happened
>> to Germany."
>What did you leave out? The '...' (which should have been '. . .')
>suggests that you don't want us to see part of what he actually
>said.
According to Raven, the quote is as he wrote it:
http://corax.org/revisionism/misc/smear1.html
I suspect he used the ellipsis in place of an n-dash.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOTSPRDfbIykA6SysEQKh6ACfSHvyBiueXEUzq0xGBL5IZN86p0gAoOka
mwye/acg6Axtwhtw4ysyih+n
=euqp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John S Moore
> There is no such thing as 'the revisionist line'.
All holocaust revisionists would, I take it, dispute that there were mass gassings at
Birkenau. So they must surely have some means of explaining away reports like that of
Borowski. If there is more than one line, I would be curious to hear any of them.
> However I suggest that you direct your
> enquiry to Greg Raven or Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review.
Why can't someone else do that for me, and post their discoveries here? Isn't it an
interesting point?
Philip Mathews
>
>Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> In >Message-id: <39345EED...@variousisps.co.uk>
>>
>> >david.e.michael" david.e...@variousisps.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>> >CuriousGeorge613 wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's Greg "Hitler was a great man" Raven
>> >>
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> Mark "I edited a neo-Nazi newsletter" Weber
>> >
>> >Now is Curious George going to give us the quotes in full?
>> >
>> >Or is he just out to smear?
>>
>> Well, here's one Raven quote:
>>
>> " My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am not
>> interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying breath. I will
>> say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater than
>> Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader
>> of our century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was
>> perfect, but he was about the best thing that could have happened
>> to Germany."
>
>What did you leave out? The '...' (which should have been '. . .') suggests
>that
>you don't want us to see part of what he actually said.
>
>David
Weak, even for you.
What's the answer to the question?
David Gehrig
>
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as 'the revisionist line'.
Translation: Dr Michael hopes you're stupid.
> All holocaust revisionists would, I take it, dispute that there were mass gassings at
> Birkenau. So they must surely have some means of explaining away reports like that of
> Borowski. If there is more than one line, I would be curious to hear any of them.
>
> > However I suggest that you direct your
> > enquiry to Greg Raven or Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review.
>
> Why can't someone else do that for me, and post their discoveries here? Isn't it an
> interesting point?
If you think it's an interesting point, follow up on it. You've been given two
good leads on revisionist mythmakers. Let us know what you find out.
@%<
david.e.michael
John Morris wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <393489D4...@variousisps.co.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Wed,
> 31 May 2000 04:41:08 +0100, "david.e.michael"
> <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Philip Mathews wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Well, here's one Raven quote:
>
> >> " My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am not
> >> interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying breath. I will
> >> say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater than
> >> Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader
> >> of our century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was
> >> perfect, but he was about the best thing that could have happened
> >> to Germany."
>
> >What did you leave out? The '...' (which should have been '. . .')
> >suggests that you don't want us to see part of what he actually
> >said.
>
> According to Raven, the quote is as he wrote it:
>
> http://corax.org/revisionism/misc/smear1.html
>
> I suspect he used the ellipsis in place of an n-dash.
>
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOTSPRDfbIykA6SysEQKh6ACfSHvyBiueXEUzq0xGBL5IZN86p0gAoOka
> mwye/acg6Axtwhtw4ysyih+n
> =euqp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fair enough.
David
david.e.michael
John S Moore wrote:
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as 'the revisionist line'.
>
> All holocaust revisionists would, I take it, dispute that there were mass gassings at
> Birkenau.
Perhaps Mr Pohl might give us his views on that one if he's reading.
> So they must surely have some means of explaining away reports like that of
> Borowski. If there is more than one line, I would be curious to hear any of them.
>
> > However I suggest that you direct your
> > enquiry to Greg Raven or Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review.
>
> Why can't someone else do that for me, and post their discoveries here?
I would be happy to do so. My fee would be £200 per hour.
> Isn't it an
> interesting point?
>
It might be. I haven't read Borowski and so can't comment.
>
> >
> >
> > <snip, to keep Dr Maddison happy>
> >
> > David
David
Gord McFee
+0100, "david.e.michael" <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
> John S Moore wrote:
>
> > If Gehring's wrong,
>
> He is.
>
> > and the revisionists here really are people of substance,
>
> We are not.
David Michael finally tells the truth.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <k2bbjsoebve5t4pcl...@4ax.com> in alt.revisionism,
on Thu, 01 Jun 2000 00:21:09 GMT, Gord McFee
<gord....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In <393457E0...@variousisps.co.uk>, on Wed, 31 May 2000
>01:08:01 +0100, "david.e.michael"
><david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>> John S Moore wrote:
>> > If Gehring's wrong,
>> He is.
>> > and the revisionists here really are people of substance,
>> We are not.
>David Michael finally tells the truth.
With a bullet.
In his foot.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOTXw1jfbIykA6SysEQLT5QCg5MjHeQPJK7FtVqD/YPhoKteWMGAAn0M7
7BgKdHIPj/XEQRNyccRWtYw0
=2w2M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John S Moore
John S Moore
Ed Kadach
>
> "david.e.michael" <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> writes:
>
> > John S Moore wrote:
> >
> > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is no such thing as 'the revisionist line'.
> > >
> > > Birkenau.
> >
> > Perhaps Mr Pohl might give us his views on that one if he's reading.
> >
> > > So they must surely have some means of explaining away reports like that of
> > > Borowski. If there is more than one line, I would be curious to hear any of them.
> > >
> > > > However I suggest that you direct your
> > > > enquiry to Greg Raven or Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review.
> > >
> > > Why can't someone else do that for me, and post their discoveries here?
> >
> > I would be happy to do so. My fee would be £200 per hour.
> >
>
Why shouldn't he? Almost everybody else is, or has made money
off the holocau$tiana industry.
regards,
Ed Kadach
William Daffer
> John S Moore wrote:
>
> > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >
> > > There is no such thing as 'the revisionist line'.
> >
> > All holocaust revisionists would, I take it, dispute that there were mass gassings at
> > Birkenau.
>
> Perhaps Mr Pohl might give us his views on that one if he's reading.
>
> > So they must surely have some means of explaining away reports like that of
> > Borowski. If there is more than one line, I would be curious to hear any of them.
> >
> > > However I suggest that you direct your
> > > enquiry to Greg Raven or Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review.
> >
> > Why can't someone else do that for me, and post their discoveries here?
>
> I would be happy to do so. My fee would be £200 per hour.
>
Trying to make a buck off the Holocaust, eh David?
To John: unless you want to hear interminable mumblings about how
epistemology and the current state of 'hermenuetical interpretation'
does not allow us to form any firm ideas about the facts of the
Holocaust, without any actual reference to those facts, *do not*
engage 'Dr' Michael's services. You'll will almost certainly be
disappointed.
> > Isn't it an
> > interesting point?
> >
>
> It might be. I haven't read Borowski and so can't comment.
>
See what I mean?
<snip>
William
--
Bill Gates is just a monocle and a Persian Cat away from being one
of the bad guys in a James Bond movie. -- D Miller
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
david.e.michael
William Daffer wrote:
> "david.e.michael" <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> writes:
>
> > John S Moore wrote:
> >
> > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is no such thing as 'the revisionist line'.
> > >
> > > All holocaust revisionists would, I take it, dispute that there were mass gassings at
> > > Birkenau.
> >
> > Perhaps Mr Pohl might give us his views on that one if he's reading.
> >
> > > So they must surely have some means of explaining away reports like that of
> > > Borowski. If there is more than one line, I would be curious to hear any of them.
> > >
> > > > However I suggest that you direct your
> > > > enquiry to Greg Raven or Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review.
> > >
> > > Why can't someone else do that for me, and post their discoveries here?
> >
> > I would be happy to do so. My fee would be £200 per hour.
> >
>
> Trying to make a buck off the Holocaust, eh David?
>
No, trying to make two hundred English pounds off of Mr Moore.
>
> To John: unless you want to hear interminable mumblings about how
> epistemology and the current state of 'hermenuetical interpretation'
> does not allow us to form any firm ideas about the facts of the
> Holocaust, without any actual reference to those facts, *do not*
> engage 'Dr' Michael's services. You'll will almost certainly be
> disappointed.
>
No, for £200 I promise faithfully to direct Mr Moore's query to Mr Raven and Mr Weber. I have
their address.
>
> > > Isn't it an
> > > interesting point?
> > >
> >
> > It might be. I haven't read Borowski and so can't comment.
> >
>
> See what I mean?
>
> <snip>
>
> William
> --
> Bill Gates is just a monocle and a Persian Cat away from being one
> of the bad guys in a James Bond movie. -- D Miller
>
> Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
David
david.e.michael
Ed Kadach wrote:
> William Daffer wrote:
> >
> > "david.e.michael" <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > > John S Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > There is no such thing as 'the revisionist line'.
> > > >
> > > > All holocaust revisionists would, I take it, dispute that there were mass gassings at
> > > > Birkenau.
> > >
> > > Perhaps Mr Pohl might give us his views on that one if he's reading.
> > >
> > > > So they must surely have some means of explaining away reports like that of
> > > > Borowski. If there is more than one line, I would be curious to hear any of them.
> > > >
> > > > > However I suggest that you direct your
> > > > > enquiry to Greg Raven or Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't someone else do that for me, and post their discoveries here?
> > >
> > > I would be happy to do so. My fee would be £200 per hour.
> > >
> >
> > Trying to make a buck off the Holocaust, eh David?
>
> Why shouldn't he? Almost everybody else is, or has made money
> off the holocau$tiana industry.
>
> regards,
> Ed Kadach
No good trying to get round me now, Slimey One. I know whose side you're on, and it is not the
side of revisionism.
David
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <393B35AE...@variousisps.co.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Mon,
05 Jun 2000 06:07:58 +0100, "david.e.michael"
<david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>Ed Kadach wrote:
[snip]
>No good trying to get round me now, Slimey One. I know whose side
>you're on, and it is not the side of revisionism.
Fuehrer David decided that Ed Kadach was the enemy after Ed dared to
criticize him for posting home telephone numbers and addresses.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOTtvZjfbIykA6SysEQKJrgCguIlbnwKtI4hnJpD7wpMSboF+1IMAoL/B
O+yzlxjRjHs6GmSJSlqGPxNh
=XUlI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----