***STRAIGHT QUESTIONS FOR SALZMAN****
david_michael
1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
David
--
Dat die erwe van ons vaad're vir ons kinders erwe bly:
Knegte van die Allerhoogste, teen die hele wereld vry.
Fragano Ledgister
>
>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
Why do you want to know?
>
>2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
Are you claiming that she used those tactics? If so, make yourself clear.
>
>David
>
>--
>Dat die erwe van ons vaad're vir ons kinders erwe bly:
>Knegte van die Allerhoogste, teen die hele wereld vry.
>
>
Krijg de mazelen.
Fragano Ledgister
(Fled...@aol.com)
I had no nation now but the imagination.
(Derek Walcott)
David Gehrig
>
> Dear Ms Salzman
>
> 1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>
> purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
Maybe because Sara didn't engage in any of these, and it's only your
Nazoid need for groupthink that makes you believe that her being
anti-revisionist makes her liable for everything any anti-revisionist
does? Is that really all that hard to figure out, Mr. Spider?
@%<
Philip Mathews
>david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>Dear Ms Salzman
>
>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
None of your business.
>
>2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
Prove the same tactics have been used.
--
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
Sara Salzman
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>Dear Ms Salzman
>
>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
No.
>
>2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>
No. The reporter read alt.revisionism as did her editor. They both checked
the Deja archives and did all the research themselves. And their attorneys
reviewed the article.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Michael.
--
"I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
Edith Sitwell
Rev-White Ministries
Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.christianbiblestudy.org
Doc Tavish
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
I can answer those questions! :-)
>Dear Ms Salzman
>
>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
Yes.
>2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>revisionist posters to this newsgroup?
No.
>If so, why?
It wouldn't have suited her purposes. How could she be a typical Jewish
victim of "thuggery and hooliganism" if the truth came out that her side
did the same and in fact started doing all that she whines about. Strange
thing about Jews-- it's okay for them to harass people but when an eye for
an eye and a tooth for a tooth is done to them they get all bent out of
shape. I'm sorry but my heart does not bleed for the sow!
What about all the death threat posts which were made with my telephone
number and address posted with invitations to visit me with baseball bats?
What about the "Kill Scotty" posts?
What about getting a new unlisted telephone number and then having it
posted the next day?
What about having your phone ring at all times night and day and when you
answer they hang up?
What about having a lawyer abuse the legal system for free (because he has
free access to the processes) and subpoena your unlisted telephone number
and address and then distribute it via a mailing list and then turn around
and say its PUBLIC DOMAIN?
What about death threat telephone calls that definitely said they were
going to kill me and one mentioned pipeb*mbs? Some recorded and given to
law enforcement.
What about a stupid pathetic kike slob lawyer from Allentown, PA known as
Yale "Tubby" Edeiken calling me in the wee hours of the morning making an
obscene/harrasment/treatening call accusing me of doing something I did
NOT do?
What about the same slob (mentioned above) filling my snail mail box with
all sorts of crap addressed in a manner clearly meant to harass and defame
"Defendant Scott Bradbury" after he made a written agreement to another
attorney to no longer make direct contact with me?
What about false service calls being made to the telephone company that my
telephone is out of order and me being charged $20.00 for the service call
when I did not make a complaint? Ma Bell has since rectified the matter
and I do not have to pay!
What about having my snail mail box flooded with Jewish "crap"?
What about being e-mailed against my wishes when I publicly stated I did
not wish to receive such e-mailings? Flash Net had to put a block on one
offender!
I.E.
Received: from abuse.flash.net (abuse.flash.net [209.30.0.67])
by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23366
for <sonn...@flash.net>; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:29:00 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from abuse@localhost)
by abuse.flash.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23173
for sonn...@flash.net; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:28:21 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:28:20 -0500
From: FlashNet Abuse <ab...@flash.net>
To: Doc Tavish <sonn...@flash.net>
Subject: Re: #2 Attn: Suzi Alaoui - Special Assistance Requested
Message-ID: <2000041011...@abuse.flash.net>
Reply-To: ab...@flash.net
References: <3.0.3.32.2000040...@pop.flash.net>
<3.0.3.32.2000040...@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.2000040...@popd.ix.netcom.com>; from
sonn...@flash.net on Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 07:00:26PM -0500
X-UIDL: 194a0f2c80ce82471b78dbce3823981c
Hello,
I have received your request, enter.net is on block through mail, until
their postmaster dealing with their customer.
--
Thank you,
Suzi Alaoui
Abuse Team
ab...@flash.net
~~~End of E-mail From My ISP~~~
The offender was <ya...@enter.net> and he got around the block by using
another account. I ultimately had to have my e-mail address changed.
This same Yale F. Edeiken threatened others with litigation for them doing
the same to him as he was doing to me! Strange how Jews always want double
standards!
Here is Edeiken's obvious hypocrisy:
http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=221242655&fmt=text
Re: E-Mail & Non E-Mail and A Threat Yet
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
Date: 1997/02/25
Forum: alt.revisionism
> the criminal Giwer displays his ignorance:
> On {23 Feb 1997 16:10:31 GMT}, {ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)} wrote in
> > Please note the technique of the criminal Giwer:
> > 1. Tavish sent me an obnoxious email. He does not deny it. He just
> >claims it was done negligently. That is irrelevant. It matters not whether
> >he said so publically, whether it did not contain a threat, or whether is wa
> >done by accident.
> >I choose, as it my right, not to receive obnxious email (and the email was
> >intended to be obnoxious) from Tavish.
> Care to cite the law governing email?
Been there. Done that. Look it up on Dejanews.
> > 2. I sent him a notice not to send me more email; cc'ing his ISP. This, of
> >course, is the procedure *required* by ISPs, In fact, when netcom.com notified the
> >criminal Giwer that any future communication from him would be "AGAINST THE LAW"
> >{their capitalization) that is exactly what they did. Tavish states, incorrectly,
> >that this constitutes "reporting" him.
> >Sorry as netcom.com told the criminal Giwer "learn more about the 'Net."
> Care to cite the law governing email?
Been there. Done that. Look it up on Dejanews.
> > 3. the criminal Giwer provides noi support whatsoever for his personal
> >attacks. He simply repeats them. What is more the criminal Giwer has an
> >agenda which he is concealing.
> >All his bluster, all his lies, all his smokescreen cannot change the fact that
> >litigation is pending because of his actionable conduct.
> Care to cite the law governing email?
Been there. Done that. Look it up on Dejanews.
> Pending? It has been pending for a year now hasn't it? Real soon?
Nope. The criminal Giwer knows exactly how long it's been
pending.
--YFE
[Tavish comment January 10, 2000; I've noticed that even back on
February 25, 1997 you were calling Matt Giwer a criminal and that you
also threatened him with litigation. This seems to be some sort of pattern
with you. You will be asked to explain the reasons why you also called
Giwer a "criminal" and threatened "litigation is pending because of his
actionable conduct" and the details of it "pending for a year." You do
seem to have some sort of compulsion to threaten lawsuits against others
because they are "criminal" in your eyes. I just may request that the
judge order a psychiatric evaluation for you. I am serious too!]
----End of DejaCom Archive---
I know I can think of more but the above shall do for now!
BTW I do NOT in the least bit feel sorry for Sara! It was her side for a
fact that started this whole bloody business! Let her reap the whirlwind!
All I can say to the Sow is: "Welcome to the club!" However I won't get
all the attention and sympathy the Sow does because I'm not one of the
chosen!
Doc Tavish
>David
Doc Tavish
<pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you calling
>Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them because
we're not the chosen!
Doc Tavish
Philip Mathews
>
> Doc Tavish doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
Oh, you've been chosen you Jew hater, you've been chosed the defendant!
Philip Mathews
>Doc Tavish doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>I can answer those questions! :-)
>
Yeah, but try telling the truth, Defendant Bradbury.
Sara Salzman
phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
>In >Message-id: <8kqiqss7c7m3vtrl3...@4ax.com>
>>
>
>> Doc Tavish doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
>><pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>>
>>>They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you calling
>>>Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>>
>>It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them because
>>we're not the chosen!
>
>Oh, you've been chosen you Jew hater, you've been chosed the defendant!
>
Atcually, I think he was chosen as the "loser" of the case.
Sara Salzman
doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>I can answer those questions! :-)
>
>>Dear Ms Salzman
>>
>>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>
>Yes.
Prove it, Liar. I was not paid.
>
>>2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>>purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>>revisionist posters to this newsgroup?
>
>No.
Prove it, Liar.
>
>>If so, why?
>
>It wouldn't have suited her purposes. How could she be a typical Jewish
>victim of "thuggery and hooliganism" if the truth came out that her side
>did the same and in fact started doing all that she whines about. Strange
>thing about Jews-- it's okay for them to harass people but when an eye for
>an eye and a tooth for a tooth is done to them they get all bent out of
>shape. I'm sorry but my heart does not bleed for the sow!
>
No one wants your histerical pity, Mr. Bradbury.
>What about all the death threat posts which were made with my telephone
>number and address posted with invitations to visit me with baseball bats?
What about them? Oh, you mean all those times I defended your privacy
against Nazihunter? Or are you now claiming that _I_ did those things to
you?
>
>What about the "Kill Scotty" posts?
Forgeries and you know it.
>What about getting a new unlisted telephone number and then having it
>posted the next day?
>
I didn't post it.
>What about having your phone ring at all times night and day and when you
>answer they hang up?
>
You mean what happens to me? Yes it is irritating, isn't it? Caller ID
blocks them all out, so I don't have to bother with them anymore.
>What about having a lawyer abuse the legal system for free (because he has
>free access to the processes) and subpoena your unlisted telephone number
>and address and then distribute it via a mailing list and then turn around
>and say its PUBLIC DOMAIN?
I never did that. However, public domain *is* just what it says. If you
wanted to sue this lawyer for invasion of privacy, nothing stopped you
from doing so.
>
>What about death threat telephone calls that definitely said they were
>going to kill me and one mentioned pipeb*mbs? Some recorded and given to
>law enforcement.
>
What about them? I didn't do it.
>What about a stupid pathetic kike slob lawyer from Allentown, PA known as
>Yale "Tubby" Edeiken calling me in the wee hours of the morning making an
>obscene/harrasment/treatening call accusing me of doing something I did
>NOT do?
>
What about it? I didn't do it.
>What about the same slob (mentioned above) filling my snail mail box with
>all sorts of crap addressed in a manner clearly meant to harass and defame
>"Defendant Scott Bradbury" after he made a written agreement to another
>attorney to no longer make direct contact with me?
>
What about it? I didn't do it.
You're lying about a written agreement or you would have scanned and
posted it online.
>What about false service calls being made to the telephone company that my
>telephone is out of order and me being charged $20.00 for the service call
>when I did not make a complaint? Ma Bell has since rectified the matter
>and I do not have to pay!
>
What about it? I didn't do it.
>What about having my snail mail box flooded with Jewish "crap"?
>
What about it? I didn't do it.
>What about being e-mailed against my wishes when I publicly stated I did
>not wish to receive such e-mailings? Flash Net had to put a block on one
>offender!
>
What about it? I didn't do it.
What Mr. Bradbury doesn't seem to understand is that this wasn't a story
about him. It wasn't a story about David Michael. It was a story the
reporter chose to write. If Mr. Bradbury wants a reporter to document his
tales of woe, nothing is stoping him from asking someone to do so.
When a reporter asked me, I told her what I knew, and directed her to
Deja.com for her research.
When she called Don Ellis for his side of the story, he played stupid, and
now claims he never spoke with her.
Sounds like she gave him every opportunity to tell "the other side" of the
story to me. Maybe Mr. Bradbury is just jealous?
Sara
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In >Message-id: <bvoiqssv7v8nrlhf6...@4ax.com>
>>Doc Tavish doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
>><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>I can answer those questions! :-)
>Yeah, but try telling the truth, Defendant Bradbury.
Shouldn't that be CONVICTED Bradbury? (Actually, "Bradburied" would be more
appropriate a term...)
-PLH, Scottie's going to get a crash course in the significance of the letters
T, D, and C
Doc Tavish
>In article <bvoiqssv7v8nrlhf6...@4ax.com>,
>doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
>><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I can answer those questions! :-)
>>
>>>Dear Ms Salzman
>>>
>>>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>>Yes.
>Prove it, Liar. I was not paid.
SUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY
>>>2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>>>purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>>>revisionist posters to this newsgroup?
>>No.
>Prove it, Liar.
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUY
>>>If so, why?
>>It wouldn't have suited her purposes. How could she be a typical Jewish
>>victim of "thuggery and hooliganism" if the truth came out that her side
>>did the same and in fact started doing all that she whines about. Strange
>>thing about Jews-- it's okay for them to harass people but when an eye for
>>an eye and a tooth for a tooth is done to them they get all bent out of
>>shape. I'm sorry but my heart does not bleed for the sow!
>No one wants your histerical pity, Mr. Bradbury.
Anyone wants to see hysteria need only to read the article on you at
Westword:
http://www.westword.com/issues/2000-08-10/feature3.html/page1.html
BTW SUE SUE SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY
>>What about all the death threat posts which were made with my telephone
>>number and address posted with invitations to visit me with baseball bats?
>What about them? Oh, you mean all those times I defended your privacy
>against Nazihunter? Or are you now claiming that _I_ did those things to
>you?
You can't stand it that you claim to being harassed can also be made by
those you look down upon!
>>What about the "Kill Scotty" posts?
>Forgeries and you know it.
They were still death threats. I never said they came from you anyway!
>>What about getting a new unlisted telephone number and then having it
>>posted the next day?
>I didn't post it.
YOUR supporters did!
>>What about having your phone ring at all times night and day and when you
>>answer they hang up?
>You mean what happens to me? Yes it is irritating, isn't it? Caller ID
>blocks them all out, so I don't have to bother with them anymore.
What about when they hack the block? They can do it and they have done it
to me! Nazihunter even bragged in public forum that he could circumvent my
"Privacy Manager" and he did too!
>>What about having a lawyer abuse the legal system for free (because he has
>>free access to the processes) and subpoena your unlisted telephone number
>>and address and then distribute it via a mailing list and then turn around
>>and say its PUBLIC DOMAIN?
>I never did that.
Your pal did!
>However, public domain *is* just what it says.
You shouldn't bitch then about your public domain number being posted
then!
>If you wanted to sue this lawyer for invasion of privacy, nothing stopped you
>from doing so.
>>
>>What about death threat telephone calls that definitely said they were
>>going to kill me and one mentioned pipeb*mbs? Some recorded and given to
>>law enforcement.
>What about them? I didn't do it.
YOUR supporters did!
>>What about a stupid pathetic kike slob lawyer from Allentown, PA known as
>>Yale "Tubby" Edeiken calling me in the wee hours of the morning making an
>>obscene/harrasment/treatening call accusing me of doing something I did
>>NOT do?
>What about it? I didn't do it.
Don't want to admit that YOUR pals and those on your side harass people
Sow?
>>What about the same slob (mentioned above) filling my snail mail box with
>>all sorts of crap addressed in a manner clearly meant to harass and defame
>>"Defendant Scott Bradbury" after he made a written agreement to another
>>attorney to no longer make direct contact with me?
>What about it? I didn't do it.
Don't want to admit that YOUR pals and those on your side harass people
Sow?
>You're lying about a written agreement or you would have scanned and
>posted it online.
It's true and your fat slob pal knows it! I won't post it because I don't
want my attorney (who is really a good guy and is ethical) to be harassed
by vermin such as you and your fellow vermin as well! Ask Tubby-- he'll
tell you he agreed May 29, 2000 to NOT make anymore direct contact with
me. I hope he pops up and calls me a liar because I'll send the post to my
attorney!!!
>>What about false service calls being made to the telephone company that my
>>telephone is out of order and me being charged $20.00 for the service call
>>when I did not make a complaint? Ma Bell has since rectified the matter
>>and I do not have to pay!
>What about it? I didn't do it.
Don't want to admit that YOUR pals and those on your side harass people
Sow?
>>What about having my snail mail box flooded with Jewish "crap"?
>What about it? I didn't do it.
Don't want to admit that YOUR pals and those on your side harass people
Sow?
>>What about being e-mailed against my wishes when I publicly stated I did
>>not wish to receive such e-mailings? Flash Net had to put a block on one
>>offender!
>What about it? I didn't do it.
Don't want to admit that YOUR pals and those on your side harass people
Sow?
>What Mr. Bradbury doesn't seem to understand is that this wasn't a story
>about him.
It was about a poor little defenseless and harmless Jew being harassed by
all of these neo-Nazis like they are behind every tree and bush!
>It wasn't a story about David Michael. It was a story the
>reporter chose to write. If Mr. Bradbury wants a reporter to document his
>tales of woe, nothing is stoping him from asking someone to do so.
So you are admitting that the story on you was nothing more than "tales of
woe"?
>When a reporter asked me, I told her what I knew, and directed her to
>Deja.com for her research.
It was rather one sided but then again what is the leftist press known for
anyway!
>When she called Don Ellis for his side of the story, he played stupid, and
>now claims he never spoke with her.
Just like you Jews do!
>Sounds like she gave him every opportunity to tell "the other side" of the
>story to me. Maybe Mr. Bradbury is just jealous?
Jealous NO! Nauseous YES!
SUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEY SUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY
Doc Tavish
---
"..neo-Nazi news groups -- alt.politics.nationalism.white and
alt.politics.white-power" Sara Salzman Labeling you all as neo-Nazis
in a Westword magazine article.
http://www.westword.com/issues/2000-08-10/feature3.html/page3.html
>Sara
david_michael
Fragano Ledgister wrote:
> >Dear Ms Salzman
> >
> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>
> Why do you want to know?
>
It would give us an insight into her motives.
>
> >
> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>
> Are you claiming that she used those tactics? If so, make yourself clear.
>
No.
I am suspicious that she might not have told the interviewer the whole truth.
Bob Kerrey
Doc Tavish displaying more 'intelligent debate' from revisionists said:
>SUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY
>SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUY
>BTW SUE SUE SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY
>SUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEY SUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY
>
> Doc Tavish
*puff* *grunt* *puff* I'M COMING SCOTTIE DARLING! *puff* *grunt*
AN INNOCENT PIG
DON ELLIS
david_michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In >Message-id: <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>
>
> >david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> >Dear Ms Salzman
> >
> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>
> None of your business.
>
> >
> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>
> Prove the same tactics have been used.
>
> --
> 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
Since when has your name been Sara Salzman, Mr Mathews?
Or perhaps you're both really John Morris?
david_michael
Sara Salzman wrote:
> In article <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >Dear Ms Salzman
> >
> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>
> No.
Thank you. That is to your credit at least.
>
> >
> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
> >
>
> No. The reporter read alt.revisionism as did her editor. They both checked
> the Deja archives and did all the research themselves. And their attorneys
> reviewed the article.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Michael.
>
Dr Michael, actually, Mrs Tucker.
So you are telling us that you DID tell the reporter that such tactics have
also been used against revisionists but that Westword deliberately failed to
print this.
Interesting.
>
> --
>
> "I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
> Edith Sitwell
David
david_michael
Doc Tavish wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
> <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>
> >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you calling
> >Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>
> It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them because
> we're not the chosen!
>
> Doc Tavish
Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a lie that
they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of these archives has
been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to them changing servers.
AN INNOCENT MAN
"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:39A97EF7...@onetel.net.uk...
> >
> > >Dear Ms Salzman
> > >
> > >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> > >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> > >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> Since when has your name been Sara Salzman, Mr Mathews?
>
> Or perhaps you're both really John Morris?
>
>
> --
> Dat die erwe van ons vaad're vir ons kinders erwe bly:
> Knegte van die Allerhoogste, teen die hele wereld vry.
>
--
THE INNOCENT MAN
>>>>DON ELLIS<<<<
Philip Mathews
> cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>In article <bvoiqssv7v8nrlhf6...@4ax.com>,
>doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
>><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I can answer those questions! :-)
>>
>>>Dear Ms Salzman
>>>
>>>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>Prove it, Liar. I was not paid.
If it was that easy to earn money, the Defendant and Donnie Ellis would be
conducting them daily!
Of course, then their stories would have to be fact checked- forget about it!
jSPAMSTOPg_brSPA...@myspamstop-deja.cspamstopom
doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>On 27 Aug 2000 20:18:14 GMT, cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
> [...deletia...]
>>You're lying about a written agreement or you would have scanned and
>>posted it online.
>
>It's true and your fat slob pal knows it!
No agreement. Scottie is lying.
Checked your parent's pension yet, Gutless?
JGB
=======================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jg_b...@my-deja.com
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997
Philip Mathews
>david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>Fragano Ledgister wrote:
>
>> >Dear Ms Salzman
>> >
>> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>>
>> Why do you want to know?
>>
>
>It would give us an insight into her motives.
Now let's see, what motive could someone whose being stalked and harrassed
have?
>
>>
>> >
>> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>>
>> Are you claiming that she used those tactics? If so, make yourself clear.
>>
>
>No.
>
>I am suspicious that she might not have told the interviewer the whole truth.
Of course you are, you're one of them!
Philip Mathews
>david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> In >Message-id: <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>
>>
>> >david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Ms Salzman
>> >
>> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>>
>> None of your business.
>>
>> >
>> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>>
>> Prove the same tactics have been used.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>Since when has your name been Sara Salzman, Mr Mathews?
Fuck yourself, Mr. Michael.
>
>Or perhaps you're both really John Morris?
Should I chuckle?
Philip Mathews
>david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>Sara Salzman wrote:
>
>> In article <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
>> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Ms Salzman
>> >
>> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>>
>> No.
>
>Thank you. That is to your credit at least.
Yes, but not to yours, since you accused of accepting money in another post.
Never one to let the truth get in the way, right Mr. Michael!
>
>>
>> >
>> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>> >
>>
>> No. The reporter read alt.revisionism as did her editor. They both checked
>> the Deja archives and did all the research themselves. And their attorneys
>> reviewed the article.
>>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Michael.
>>
>
>Dr Michael, actually, Mrs Tucker.
>
>So you are telling us that you DID tell the reporter that such tactics have
>also been used against revisionists but that Westword deliberately failed to
>print this.
>
>Interesting.
Reduced to semantical games, eh liar!
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sun, 27
Aug 2000 22:00:51 +0100, david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
wrote:
>Doc Tavish wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
>> <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>> >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you
>> >calling Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>> It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them
>> because we're not the chosen!
>> Doc Tavish
>Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a
>lie that they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of
>these archives has been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to
>them changing servers.
That's lame even for you, David. No one said "all" the archives
except your co-conspirators. The judge will be sooooo impressed with
your intellect.
It looks like your room to wiggle is getting smaller and smaller.
- --
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/AwUBOamG0DfbIykA6SysEQIViACg2qk3h4qRxYJC1GBMGs6frldZqKIAoLIg
6rmlYoIRs8zP+YAHDeTWW81m
=z6jG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeffrey G. Brown
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>So you are telling us that you DID tell the reporter that such tactics have
>also been used against revisionists but that Westword deliberately failed to
>print this.
Where did Ms. Salzman make such a statement, shithead?
david_michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In >Message-id: <catamont-270...@ts001d13.den-co.concentric.net>
>
> > cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>
> >In article <bvoiqssv7v8nrlhf6...@4ax.com>,
> >doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
> >><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>I can answer those questions! :-)
> >>
> >>>Dear Ms Salzman
> >>>
> >>>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> >Prove it, Liar. I was not paid.
>
> If it was that easy to earn money, the Defendant and Donnie Ellis would be
> conducting them daily!
>
> Of course, then their stories would have to be fact checked- forget about it!
>
> --
> 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
Evidently Ms Salzman's story was not 'fact checked'.
Or at least, not competently.
AN INNOCENT MAN
"John Morris" <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
news:od1jqsolshv78mr02...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sun, 27
> Aug 2000 22:00:51 +0100, david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Doc Tavish wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
> >> <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>
> >> >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you
> >> >calling Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>
> >> It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them
> >> because we're not the chosen!
>
> >> Doc Tavish
>
> >Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a
> >lie that they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of
> >these archives has been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to
> >them changing servers.
>
> That's lame even for you, David. No one said "all" the archives
> except your co-conspirators. The judge will be sooooo impressed with
> your intellect.
WHAT IS THE JUDGE'S NAME
--
THE INNOCENT MAN
>>>>DON ELLIS<<<<
?
Jeffrey G. Brown
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>Evidently Ms Salzman's story was not 'fact checked'.
Which facts, as presented in the story, do you dispute, dungheap?
Philip Mathews
> david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> In >Message-id: <catamont-270...@ts001d13.den-co.concentric.net>
>>
>> > cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <bvoiqssv7v8nrlhf6...@4ax.com>,
>> >doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
>> >><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I can answer those questions! :-)
>> >>
>> >>>Dear Ms Salzman
>> >>>
>> >>>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>> >>
>> >>Yes.
>> >
>> >Prove it, Liar. I was not paid.
>>
>> If it was that easy to earn money, the Defendant and Donnie Ellis would be
>> conducting them daily!
>>
>> Of course, then their stories would have to be fact checked- forget about
>it!
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>Evidently Ms Salzman's story was not 'fact checked'.
Based on what, your reputation for honesty?
>
>Or at least, not competently.
Talk.
Gord McFee
> Dear Ms Salzman
>
> 1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
No.
> 2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
No.
Tilt!
Bwahahahahaha!!
--
Gord McFee
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
David Gehrig
>
> In article <39A98A46...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
And be specific. Try to quote complete sentences. Just waving your
hand at it and saying "it's full of lies" won't cut it -- too,
uh, davidmichaelian a gesture.
@%<
David Gehrig
>
> In >Message-id: <39A98A46...@onetel.net.uk>
>
> > david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
<< snip >>
> >Evidently Ms Salzman's story was not 'fact checked'.
>
> Based on what, your reputation for honesty?
Quick, someone get the electron microscope!
> >Or at least, not competently.
>
> Talk.
That's what he does.
@%<
David Gehrig
a particularly funny attempt at damage control.
Can't get good help nowadays, can ya, Spider?
@%<
Rev-White Ministries
mentioned the death threats done to Don Ellis and his family, she would of
confessed to calling him a chickenhawk, she would of confessed to claiming I
was Don Ellis over 100 times, she would of confessed that she used her 85
year old father to score points against Tavish, she would of confessed the
death threats done to Tavish etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
But don't blame her, pity her. She was raised this way, to profit from
so-called victimhood (all Jews are taught to do this) she can't help it.
We understand Sara. Really, we do.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.christianbiblestudy.org
Hilary Ostrov
<39A9A822...@earthlink.net>, David Gehrig
<zem...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Poor little repressed lamb with the brain of a guinea pig, eh?! You
know ...watching his performances, of late, conjures up an image of an
arachnid standing on his one remaining leg, flailing around in
desperation - as he futilely scrambles to extricate himself from the
web he's woven.
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
WWW: http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Rev-White Ministries
calling Don and Doc chickenhawks? Did you confess to bringing your 85 year
old father into this newsgroup? Did you confess that you claimed that
posting publicly obtained information is ok on usenet? Did you confess that
you personally asked for the address of Don Ellis, and then a week later
admit that you never talked about Don Ellis? Did you confess... ah forget
it, I can go on all night.
It's not Sara's fault she is the way she is. Bad genetics, bad education.
We understand Sara. Really we do.
Rev-White Ministries
that she basically is full of "manure".The story also failed to contact me,
which I would of done the same thing by proving this is simply a flame war
that Sara helped to start. Sara is simply trying to profit from so-called
"victimhood" as do all Jews when given the chance.
But I understand why Sara does these things (bad genetics, bad upraising).
Really, I do understand. And I pity you.
Hilary Ostrov
<catamont-270...@ts008d47.den-co.concentric.net>,
cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>In article <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
[...]
>>
>>Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a lie that
>>they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of these archives has
>>been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to them changing servers.
>Really? Then tell me, Einstein, what DATE did they begin researching?
Hmmm ... given "Einstein's" predilections, he - or one of his
quasi-literate blight brigade - will probably respond by telling us
that the "changing servers" was merely an excuse and that deja is
really part of the ongoing worldwide Joooish (and/or "establishment")
conspiracy to deprive all guinea pig brained "revisionists" of their
right to have *their* story published their way (cf., as you noted in
another post, his spectacular blooper re the Irving site).
>Admit it, David. You're just upset because I didn't mention you and the BNP.
Given his demonstrated overblown ego (not to mention his highly
exaggerated opinion of himself), I think you may have hit the
proverbial nail right on the head. Kinda like Irving being upset
because he was mentioned in so few pages of Lipstadt's book; so he
tried to silence her by attempting to rewrite her words - then suing
her for libel, based on his interpretations of his attempted
rewritings.
Patrick Keenan
story on you, too.
Of course, you'll lose your anonymity.
-pk
Rev-White Ministries <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote in message
news:cmcq5.13236$C7.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you calling
> Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>
>
Sara Salzman
>Doc Tavish wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
>> <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>>
>> >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you calling
>> >Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>>
>> It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them because
>> we're not the chosen!
>>
>> Doc Tavish
>
>Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a lie that
>they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of these archives has
>been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to them changing servers.
>
>David
>
Really? Then tell me, Einstein, what DATE did they begin researching?
Admit it, David. You're just upset because I didn't mention you and the BNP.
Sara
Sara Salzman
MAN" <don.e...@gte.net> wrote:
>"John Morris" <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
>news:od1jqsolshv78mr02...@4ax.com...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> In <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sun, 27
>> Aug 2000 22:00:51 +0100, david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Doc Tavish wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
>> >> <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>>
>> >> >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you
>> >> >calling Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>>
>> >> It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them
>> >> because we're not the chosen!
>>
>> >> Doc Tavish
>>
>> >Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a
>> >lie that they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of
>> >these archives has been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to
>> >them changing servers.
>>
>> That's lame even for you, David. No one said "all" the archives
>> except your co-conspirators. The judge will be sooooo impressed with
>> your intellect.
>
>
>
>WHAT IS THE JUDGE'S NAME
>--
>THE INNOCENT MAN
>>>>>DON ELLIS<<<<
On July 18, Westword contacted the only Don Ellis in the 2,000-person town
of Star City. He said he didn't know of a Sara Salzman and that her
situation was "kind of news to me." The following conversation ensued:
Westword: Are you the Don Ellis who used to operate The American Guardian
Web site?
Ellis: There is no American Guardian Web site.
Westword: Did you used to operate a Web site called The American Guardian?
Ellis: [no reply]
Westword: Did you used to operate a Web site called HateWatch of America?
Ellis: Ummm...not to my knowledge.
Westword: Have you ever posted negative messages about Sara Salzman or
anyone else to alt.revisionism?
Ellis: I haven't posted anything in three or four months.
Westword: Have you ever posted to alt.revisionism?
Ellis: I'm not sure. I'd have to check my files. She should just turn the
computer off. She should just back out of the situation. I have had death
threats, and I just ignore them. It's probably just someone blowing off
steam.
And later:
Westword: Sara Salzman claims nasty messages have been posted about her in
a news group.
Ellis: What kind of nasty messages?
Westword: Things like "Sara Salzman is a dyke. Sara Salzman is a dog-fucker."
Ellis: Well, is she? [A couple of moments of silence.] So, does she do
those things?
Westword: All I can tell you is that someone has been posting messages
saying she does, and she's not happy about it.
Ellis: How do you know that she doesn't do those things?
Sara Salzman
>Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> In >Message-id: <catamont-270...@ts001d13.den-co.concentric.net>
>>
>> > cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <bvoiqssv7v8nrlhf6...@4ax.com>,
>> >doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
>> >><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I can answer those questions! :-)
>> >>
>> >>>Dear Ms Salzman
>> >>>
>> >>>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>> >>
>> >>Yes.
>> >
>> >Prove it, Liar. I was not paid.
>>
>> If it was that easy to earn money, the Defendant and Donnie Ellis would be
>> conducting them daily!
>>
>> Of course, then their stories would have to be fact checked- forget about it!
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>Evidently Ms Salzman's story was not 'fact checked'.
>
>Or at least, not competently.
>
>David
Pretty lame, even for you, Mr. Michael.
Sara Salzman
>Sara Salzman wrote:
>
>> In article <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
>> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Ms Salzman
>> >
>> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>>
>> No.
>
>Thank you. That is to your credit at least.
>
>>
>> >
>> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>> >
>>
>> No. The reporter read alt.revisionism as did her editor. They both checked
>> the Deja archives and did all the research themselves. And their attorneys
>> reviewed the article.
>>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Michael.
>>
>
>Dr Michael, actually, Mrs Tucker.
>
>So you are telling us that you DID tell the reporter that such tactics have
>also been used against revisionists but that Westword deliberately failed to
>print this.
>
>Interesting.
>
No, that isn't what I said, you old liar.
I told the reporter what I know. She did her research. Her editor did his
research. Their attorneys did their research.
If you don't like what they wrote, send a letter to the Editor. That's
your right.
Sara
Sara Salzman
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>Fragano Ledgister wrote:
>
>> >Dear Ms Salzman
>> >
>> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>>
>> Why do you want to know?
>>
>
>It would give us an insight into her motives.
Well, you were wrong, weren't you?
>
>>
>> >
>> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>>
>> Are you claiming that she used those tactics? If so, make yourself clear.
>>
>
>No.
>
>I am suspicious that she might not have told the interviewer the whole truth.
>
Well you were wrong.
Bob Kerrey
Rev-White Ministries wrote in message ...
And we all 'would of' called you a liar, because, that is what you are.
BobK
Philip Mathews
>"Rev-White Ministries" pat_bl...@excite.com.X wrote:
>It is clear Sara did not tell them the complete truth or she would of
>mentioned the death threats done to Don Ellis and his family,
"Would of" Don?
Why should she have mentioned these?
Are you lying again?
Bob Kerrey
Rev-White Ministries wrote in message ...
>calling Don and Doc chickenhawks? Did you confess to bringing your 85 year
>old father into this newsgroup? Did you confess that you claimed that
>posting publicly obtained information is ok on usenet? Did you confess that
>you personally asked for the address of Don Ellis, and then a week later
>admit that you never talked about Don Ellis? Did you confess... ah forget
>it, I can go on all night.
And you will....
>
>It's not Sara's fault she is the way she is. Bad genetics, bad education.
That sounds more like your alibi, Rev.
>
>We understand Sara. Really we do.
>
>--
>--Pat W Blakely--
>http://www.christianbiblestudy.org
You don't understand. But your rising fear is beginning to show that a
small glimmer has entered that closed mind of yours. There is much more to
come for you yet.
BobK
Philip Mathews
>"Rev-White Ministries" pat_bl...@excite.com.X wrote:
>You only her what you wanted them to know.
Well Don, you call her up and tell her what you want her to know. Maybe you'll
do better than the last time you spoke to her.
Of course she'll want to verify what you have to say, see evidence, talk to
other people, maybe even check on your reputation.
Give her a call, coward.
Philip Mathews
>Rev-White Ministries" pat_bl...@excite.com.X wrote:
>She did not mention you David because she knows that you could easily prove
>that she basically is full of "manure". The story also failed to contact me,
which I would of done the same....
Yeah, we've seen how Mr. Michael has handled the story.
You're easily impressed, aren't you Don "would of" Ellis.
mod...@my-deja.com
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> Dear Ms Salzman
Dr. Michael:
> 1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
This is most interesting. I think the more important question would be
why all this is happening to her? Jeepers, look at what you and your
cohorts have started in this newsgroup. Massive personal thuggery at
the expense of a history all of you have totally failed to defend.
My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
> 2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
This I need to understand. What and who has been doing things to you?
I read Mr. Morris' story and you really do not smell like a rose in
that case. You used your own name in a post. I think it is honourable
to receive a doctoriate in anything. It shows commitment. But I do not
think it is honorable for you to act as you have considering your
credentials. I can't see that anything has been done to you that you
didn't do to yourself.
--
modacc
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mod...@my-deja.com
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Fragano Ledgister wrote:
>
> > >Dear Ms Salzman
> > >
> >
> >
>
> It would give us an insight into her motives.
What about your motives for doing what you have don in supporting or
helping the poor human behaviour of others?
> > >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that
you
> > >purport to have been used against you are have also been used
against
> > >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
> >
> > Are you claiming that she used those tactics? If so, make yourself
clear.
> >
>
> No.
That would be worse to assualt a person who has done none of things you
think others have done to you. It's because she is a woman and someone
you thought would be an easy target?
> I am suspicious that she might not have told the interviewer the
whole truth.
And what truth do you know that she does not?
mod...@my-deja.com
> >
> > >david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >
> > >Dear Ms Salzman
> > >
> > >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that
you
> > >purport to have been used against you are have also been used
against
> > >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> Or perhaps you're both really John Morris?
Perhaps you are an idiot in a public newsgroup? Yes?
mod...@my-deja.com
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Doc Tavish wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
> > <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
> >
> > >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you
calling
> > >Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
> >
> > It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them
because
> > we're not the chosen!
> >
> > Doc Tavish
>
> Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a
lie that
> they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of these
archives has
> been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to them changing servers.
However, Dr. Michael, I havwe been receiving copies from those who
saved these letters posted here. I'm quickly catching up.
mod...@my-deja.com
co.concentric.net>
> >
> > > cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <bvoiqssv7v8nrlhf6...@4ax.com>,
> > >doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:59:47 +0100, david_michael
> > >><david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>I can answer those questions! :-)
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Prove it, Liar. I was not paid.
> >
> > If it was that easy to earn money, the Defendant and Donnie Ellis
would be
> > conducting them daily!
> >
> > Of course, then their stories would have to be fact checked- forget
about it!
> >
> > 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
>
>
> Or at least, not competently.
Tell me how they should have "fact checked" the article, Dr. Michael.
david_michael
mod...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>,
> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > Dear Ms Salzman
>
> Dr. Michael:
>
> > 1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>
> This is most interesting. I think the more important question would be
> why all this is happening to her?
I suspect she's antagonized the wrong people. Probably deliberately.
> Jeepers, look at what you and your
> cohorts have started in this newsgroup.
I've only noticed you here for a few weeks at most. I've been here two or
three years. I think I'm in a better position to say who started what. The
real nastiness started with Nazihunter and John Morris. They're both
anti-revisionists. Others joined the bandwagon. In the end, some
revisionists evidently got pissed off with it all and decided to administer
a dose of their own medicine.
> Massive personal thuggery at
> the expense of a history all of you have totally failed to defend.
>
I haven't seen YOU defending much history -- you just seem to be abusing
people and spoiling for a fight all the time. Sorry -- not playing.
>
> My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
>
He says that he didn't have an interview at all. Can you prove him wrong?
>
> > 2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> > purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> > revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>
> This I need to understand. What and who has been doing things to you?
(a) Posting of personal information about revisionists: Nazihunter, John
Morris, Ken McVay.
(b) Subpoenaing of personal information about revisionists that
subsequently found its way into the hands of Nazihunter: Yale F Edeiken.
(c) Defamation: some of the most spectacular examples come from Gord McFee,
although most of the others have joined in to a greater or lesser extent.
Let us also not forget Sara Salzman's defamation of Mr Bradbury.
(d) Threats of violence: Nazihunter, Joe Bruno.
(e) Attempts to get revisionists thrown off of their ISPs: Sara Salzman,
David Christian.
(f) Frivolous lawsuits: Yale F Edeiken.
(g) Abuse: a standard approach of pretty much all anti-revisionists.
(h) Impersonation: Michael Ragland and various unidentifiable individuals.
(i) Actual violence: unknown firebomber who attacked William Grosvenor's
home.
The list is probably not complete.
> I read Mr. Morris' story and you really do not smell like a rose in
> that case.
I have no idea what story you are writing about but Morris is a smearer of
the first order.
> You used your own name in a post. I think it is honourable
> to receive a doctoriate in anything. It shows commitment. But I do not
> think it is honorable for you to act as you have considering your
> credentials.
Is it honourable for you to post abuse in a public newsgroup?
Then I suggest you put your own act in order before preaching to others.
> I can't see that anything has been done to you that you
> didn't do to yourself.
>
Means?
>
> --
> modacc
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
David
--
Dat die erwe van ons vaad're vir ons kinders erwe bly:
Knegte van die Allerhoogste, teen die hele wereld vry.
david_michael
Sara Salzman wrote:
> In article <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >Doc Tavish wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
> >> <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
> >>
> >> >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you calling
> >> >Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
> >>
> >> It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them because
> >> we're not the chosen!
> >>
> >> Doc Tavish
> >
> >Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a lie that
> >they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of these archives has
> >been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to them changing servers.
> >
> >David
> >
>
> Really? Then tell me, Einstein, what DATE did they begin researching?
>
I have no idea.
>
> Admit it, David. You're just upset because I didn't mention you and the BNP.
>
I'm sure you'll get around to it in due course.
>
> Sara
>
> --
>
> "I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
> Edith Sitwell
--
david_michael
Sara Salzman wrote:
Did you or did you not neglect to tell them of the harassment experienced by
revisionist posters in this group?
>
> If you don't like what they wrote, send a letter to the Editor. That's
> your right.
>
Indeed.
>
> Sara
>
> --
>
> "I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
> Edith Sitwell
David
david_michael
Sara Salzman wrote:
> In article <39A97D30...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >Fragano Ledgister wrote:
> >
> >> >Dear Ms Salzman
> >> >
> >> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
> >>
> >> Why do you want to know?
> >>
> >
> >It would give us an insight into her motives.
>
> Well, you were wrong, weren't you?
About what?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> >> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> >> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
> >>
> >> Are you claiming that she used those tactics? If so, make yourself clear.
> >>
> >
> >No.
> >
> >I am suspicious that she might not have told the interviewer the whole truth.
> >
> Well you were wrong.
>
You're contradicting yourself all over the place with this. Did you or did you not
mention the harassment experienced by revisionist posters to this newsgroup?
>
> Sara
>
> --
>
> "I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
> Edith Sitwell
David
david_michael
Rev-White Ministries wrote:
> It is clear Sara did not tell them the complete truth or she would of
> mentioned the death threats done to Don Ellis and his family, she would of
> confessed to calling him a chickenhawk, she would of confessed to claiming I
> was Don Ellis over 100 times, she would of confessed that she used her 85
> year old father to score points against Tavish, she would of confessed the
> death threats done to Tavish etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
There's a lot of things that she could have told them about attempts to silence
revisionists in this newsgroup. Either she failed to do so, in which case she's
guilty of not telling the whole truth, or she did tell them, in which case
they're guilty of not printing the whole truth. She's rather unforthcoming about
this.
>
> But don't blame her, pity her. She was raised this way, to profit from
> so-called victimhood (all Jews are taught to do this) she can't help it.
>
> We understand Sara. Really, we do.
> --
> --Pat W Blakely--
> http://www.christianbiblestudy.org
David
david_michael
mod...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk>,
> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Doc Tavish wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
> > > <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
> > >
> > > >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you
> calling
> > > >Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
> > >
> > > It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them
> because
> > > we're not the chosen!
> > >
> > > Doc Tavish
> >
> > Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a
> lie that
> > they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of these
> archives has
> > been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to them changing servers.
>
> However, Dr. Michael, I havwe been receiving copies from those who
> saved these letters posted here. I'm quickly catching up.
>
> --
> modacc
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Interesting how much material is sent by e-mail by the anti-revisionists.
What we revisionists can't see, we can't argue against, right?
mod...@my-deja.com
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> mod...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>,
> > david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > > Dear Ms Salzman
> >
> >
> > > 1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
> >
be
> > why all this is happening to her?
>
> I suspect she's antagonized the wrong people. Probably deliberately.
By debating in a newsgroup? That is a shame. Are all of you covered
with see-through skin? Did your maturity as men stop at the age of 14?
> > Jeepers, look at what you and your
> > cohorts have started in this newsgroup.
>
> I've only noticed you here for a few weeks at most. I've been here
two or
> three years.
One can catch up by reading past historic posts in this newsgroup. Plus
I have received full threads of some very interesting conversations.
> I think I'm in a better position to say who started what. The
> real nastiness started with Nazihunter and John Morris.
I don't know about Nazi-hunter but I do know about the Morris history.
You went totally outside of morality when you posted his supervisors
phone number and so on. As far as I can see from what I was given is
that he said you were a PHD and your doctoriate thesis was on a
particular subject. The rest was a total over-reaction on yuor part.
But none of this really has to do with "revisionism" or the revising of
real human history. What it is is juvenile behaviour.
> They're both
> anti-revisionists.
So what? Are their arguments right and supportable? That is what is
important to me.
> Others joined the bandwagon.
There is no bandwagon in history. You can either make you history stand
up to your peers of you cannot. If you cannot then you fail. Research
is everyhing. Unbiased research is also very important. Should your
theory collapse it is best not to cling to it by distorting the facts
like your favorite David Irving.
> In the end, some
> revisionists evidently got pissed off with it all and decided to
administer
> a dose of their own medicine.
I think they saw they were beaten.
> > Massive personal thuggery at
> > the expense of a history all of you have totally failed to defend.
> >
>
> I haven't seen YOU defending much history
You do not discuss history. You run away from debates. I have two now
that you have evaded.
One -- The atomic bombings of Japan
Two -- The Law behind the Eichmann Trial.
> -- you just seem to be abusing
> people and spoiling for a fight all the time. Sorry -- not playing.
This must be what Adny was talking about. You call me something and
then run away. He seems to have been correct.
> >
> > My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
> >
>
> He says that he didn't have an interview at all. Can you prove him
wrong?
The article shews that they spoke with him. Would they lie. Considering
the speech laws in america I don't think they would. Mr. Ellis is
hardly a public figure.
> > > 2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that
you
> > > purport to have been used against you are have also been used
against
> > > revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
> >
> > This I need to understand. What and who has been doing things to
you?
> (a) Posting of personal information about revisionists: Nazihunter,
John
> Morris, Ken McVay.
I only know of Mr. Morris. I don't know of Nazihunter, who I do not see
posting in the group. As for Ken McVay, I made myself quite clear what
I thought about his actions. Did you read my views?
> (b) Subpoenaing of personal information about revisionists that
> subsequently found its way into the hands of Nazihunter: Yale F
Edeiken.
Why would they do that?
> (c) Defamation: some of the most spectacular examples come from Gord
McFee,
> although most of the others have joined in to a greater or lesser
extent.
It seems that this is the spirit of the newsgroup. It appears that you
have no intentions of ending it yourself.
> Let us also not forget Sara Salzman's defamation of Mr Bradbury.
URL?
> (d) Threats of violence: Nazihunter, Joe Bruno.
URL?
> (e) Attempts to get revisionists thrown off of their ISPs: Sara
Salzman,
> David Christian.
If one violates the rules of the ISPs then complaints may be made, Dr.
Michael.
> (f) Frivolous lawsuits: Yale F Edeiken.
They do not sound too frivolous. Has he sued you?
> (g) Abuse: a standard approach of pretty much all anti-revisionists.
Projection.
> (h) Impersonation: Michael Ragland and various unidentifiable
individuals.
Projection, Mr. Cuddles?
> (i) Actual violence: unknown firebomber who attacked William
Grosvenor's
> home.
Who in this newsgroup is responsible for that?
. . .
> > I read Mr. Morris' story and you really do not smell like a rose in
> > that case.
>
> I have no idea what story you are writing about but Morris is a
smearer of
> the first order.
And you are not? (Yes, I started the sentence with "and.")
> > You used your own name in a post. I think it is honourable
> > to receive a doctoriate in anything. It shows commitment. But I do
not
> > think it is honorable for you to act as you have considering your
> > credentials.
>
> Is it honourable for you to post abuse in a public newsgroup?
I'm not abusing you, Dr. Michael, I'm replying to you as anyone would
given your tactics and character. I have tired to have a conversation
with you but you are frightened to do so.
> Then I suggest you put your own act in order before preaching to
others.
My act is fine, Dr. Michael. It is you who cannot deal with the history.
> > I can't see that anything has been done to you that you
> > didn't do to yourself.
> >
>
> Means?
You are a psychologist and you do not know what this means?
Philip Mathews
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Rev-White Ministries wrote:
>
> > It is clear Sara did not tell them the complete truth or she would
of
> > mentioned the death threats done to Don Ellis and his family, she
would of
> > confessed to calling him a chickenhawk, she would of confessed to
claiming I
> > was Don Ellis over 100 times, she would of confessed that she used
her 85
> > year old father to score points against Tavish, she would of
confessed the
> > death threats done to Tavish etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
> >
>
> There's a lot of things that she could have told them about attempts
to silence
> revisionists in this newsgroup. Either she failed to do so, in which
case she's
> guilty of not telling the whole truth, or she did tell them, in which
case
> they're guilty of not printing the whole truth. She's rather
unforthcoming about
> this.
And you and Don are rather reluctant to call the newspaper and make your
case. Go ahead, call and provide them your evidence that attempts to
deny speech to deniers are being are being made.
You guys don't dare because you know it's a load of bunk, and that it
will be seen as such by everyone.
--
Philip Mathews
Philip Mathews
experienced by
> revisionist posters in this group?
What harrassment? Call them and give them the evidence. Or are you
afraid they'll see you're just a crackpot?
alg...@freedom.net
<mod...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8odm6n$3l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>,
> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > Dear Ms Salzman
>
> Dr. Michael:
>
> > 1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>
> This is most interesting. I think the more important question would be
> why all this is happening to her? Jeepers, look at what you and your
> cohorts have started in this newsgroup. Massive personal thuggery at
> the expense of a history all of you have totally failed to defend.
>
> My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
Did you see the recent special on NBC about "hate" on the internet. They
used a group of students at Northwestern to research the groups. One
observation that the students made was the manner in which women were
denigrated be these groups. The behavior of Don Ellis and "Doc Tavish" is
quite consistent with this observation.
I'm sure any psychiatrist would find it quite significant.
Bob Kerrey
david_michael wrote in message <39AA64BB...@onetel.net.uk>...
>
>
>mod...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk>,
>> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Doc Tavish wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
>> > > <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you
>> calling
>> > > >Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>> > >
>> > > It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them
>> because
>> > > we're not the chosen!
>> > >
>> > > Doc Tavish
>> >
>> > Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a
>> lie that
>> > they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of these
>> archives has
>> > been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to them changing servers.
>>
>> However, Dr. Michael, I havwe been receiving copies from those who
>> saved these letters posted here. I'm quickly catching up.
>>
>> --
>> modacc
>>
>What we revisionists can't see, we can't argue against, right?
>
>David
>
>--
>Dat die erwe van ons vaad're vir ons kinders erwe bly:
>Knegte van die Allerhoogste, teen die hele wereld vry.
No, but you surely can discuss it on ICQ, amongst other things. Or are you
also saying that Bradbury is lying when he says he receives e-mails from his
supporters (one of which is you).
Which one is it Herr Doktor?
BobK
mod...@my-deja.com
I was told that those who argue against you save threads and material
so they do not have re-type explanations to already answered questions.
I was told that thread histories on particular topics save time. I
agree with those I have spoken with that this appears to be true. As
one person told me, "I see no reason to re-invent the wheel."
--
M. A. B.
david_michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In article <39AA61C3...@onetel.net.uk>,
> > Did you or did you not neglect to tell them of the harassment
> experienced by
> > revisionist posters in this group?
>
> What harrassment? Call them and give them the evidence. Or are you
> afraid they'll see you're just a crackpot?
>
> --
> Philip Mathews
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Do you ever read the other posts in the threads to which you attempt to
contribute?
Fragano Ledgister
>
>
>Fragano Ledgister wrote:
>
>> >Dear Ms Salzman
>> >
>> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>>
>>
>
>It would give us an insight into her motives.
She's come under considerable harassment, and you want to know her motives?
Pull the other one.
>
>>
>> >
>> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>>
>> Are you claiming that she used those tactics? If so, make yourself clear.
>>
>
>No.
Then why have you not condemned that harassment?
>
>I am suspicious that she might not have told the interviewer the whole truth.
How interesting.
>
>>
>> >
>> >David
>> >
>> >--
>> >Dat die erwe van ons vaad're vir ons kinders erwe bly:
>> >Knegte van die Allerhoogste, teen die hele wereld vry.
>> >
>> >
>> Krijg de mazelen.
>>
>> Fragano Ledgister
>> (Fled...@aol.com)
>> I had no nation now but the imagination.
>> (Derek Walcott)
>
>David
>
Fragano Ledgister
(Fled...@aol.com)
I had no nation now but the imagination.
(Derek Walcott)
Neo
Rev-White Ministries <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote in message
news:n0kq5.14487$C7.5...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
>
> But don't blame her, pity her. She was raised this way, to profit from
> so-called victimhood (all Jews are taught to do this) she can't help it.
>
> We understand Sara. Really, we do.
You must think the Regs have an IQ less than you if you think your
deliberate attempts at harassment, though being repetitively patronising,
aren't being noted.
You really are intellectually challenged. Tell me Rev, were you born this
way, dropped as a child or have you spent too much time in the company of
Tavish?
Have a nice day. Really.
Neo
Neo
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:39AA63D0...@onetel.net.uk...
>
> There's a lot of things that she could have told them about attempts to
silence
> revisionists in this newsgroup. Either she failed to do so, in which case
she's
> guilty of not telling the whole truth, or she did tell them, in which case
> they're guilty of not printing the whole truth. She's rather unforthcoming
about
> this.
>
threats and spam.
The rest has been subject to debate. Lets face it monkey boy, if you thought
your Nazi views would go unchallenged then you have a screw loose.
<snigger>
Neo
AN INNOCENT MAN <don.e...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Slgq5.7525$td3.7...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> "John Morris" <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
> news:od1jqsolshv78mr02...@4ax.com...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sun, 27
> > Aug 2000 22:00:51 +0100, david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Doc Tavish wrote:
> >
> > >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
> > >> <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
> >
> > >> >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you
> > >> >calling Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
> >
> > >> It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them
> > >> because we're not the chosen!
> >
> > >> Doc Tavish
> >
> > >Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a
> > >lie that they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of
> > >these archives has been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to
> > >them changing servers.
> >
> > except your co-conspirators. The judge will be sooooo impressed with
> > your intellect.
>
>
>
> WHAT IS THE JUDGE'S NAME
> --
> THE INNOCENT MAN
> >>>>DON ELLIS<<<<
> ?
Your Honour?
Why have you met him before?
Neo
AN INNOCENT MAN
> >
> > My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dat die erwe van ons vaad're vir ons kinders erwe bly:
> Knegte van die Allerhoogste, teen die hele wereld vry.
>
MY FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTERVIEW WAS WHEN I READ THE ARTICLE.
Philip Mathews
>don.e...@gte.net wrote:
>"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:39AA607D...@onetel.net.uk...
>> >
>> > My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
>> >
>>
>> He says that he didn't have an interview at all. Can you prove him wrong?
He's lying. The newspaper says they interviewed him. Can you prove them wrong.
>
>MY FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTERVIEW WAS WHEN I READ THE ARTICLE.
Well, any self-respecting man would sue, or call the publisher of the paper, or
at least write the editor and demand a retraction.
You won't do that will you Don. And we know why!
Philip Mathews
> david_michael david_...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> In >Message-id: <NiCq5.460$lG5.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>
>>
>> >don.e...@gte.net wrote:
>>
>> >"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:39AA607D...@onetel.net.uk...
>> >> >
>> >> > My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> He says that he didn't have an interview at all. Can you prove him
>wrong?
>>
>> He's lying. The newspaper says they interviewed him. Can you prove them
>wrong.
Guess not.
>
>Looks like their word against his. Can you prove either of them right?
The newspaper can. That's why Don won't do a thing, and that's why you're
talking out of your ass, as usual.
>
>>
>> >
>> >MY FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTERVIEW WAS WHEN I READ THE ARTICLE.
>>
>> Well, any self-respecting man would sue,
>
>You're living in a fantasy world.
Not in the least.
>
>> or call the publisher of the paper, or
>> at least write the editor and demand a retraction.
>>
>> You won't do that will you Don. And we know why!
Guess Micheal does too!
Dobr...@webtv.net
Answer: His mouth is open
Joe Bruno
<html><bgsound src="http://www.fgi.net/~andyr/FAVORITE.MID"> </html>
david_michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In >Message-id: <NiCq5.460$lG5.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>
>
> >don.e...@gte.net wrote:
>
> >"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> >news:39AA607D...@onetel.net.uk...
> >> >
> >> > My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
> >> >
> >>
> >> He says that he didn't have an interview at all. Can you prove him wrong?
>
> He's lying. The newspaper says they interviewed him. Can you prove them wrong.
Looks like their word against his. Can you prove either of them right?
>
> >
> >MY FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTERVIEW WAS WHEN I READ THE ARTICLE.
>
> Well, any self-respecting man would sue,
You're living in a fantasy world.
> or call the publisher of the paper, or
> at least write the editor and demand a retraction.
>
> You won't do that will you Don. And we know why!
>
> --
> 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
David
Fragano Ledgister
>
>"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:39AA607D...@onetel.net.uk...
>> >
>> > My question would be why Don Ellis had such a horrid interview?
>> >
>>
>> He says that he didn't have an interview at all. Can you prove him wrong?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dat die erwe van ons vaad're vir ons kinders erwe bly:
>> Knegte van die Allerhoogste, teen die hele wereld vry.
>>
>
>
>
>THE INNOCENT MAN
>>>>>DON ELLIS<<<<
>
And if anyone believes that, I have a bridge to sell to them.
David Gehrig
>
<< snip >>
> > Evidently Ms Salzman's story was not 'fact checked'.
> >
> > Or at least, not competently.
>
> Tell me how they should have "fact checked" the article, Dr. Michael.
Which facts, specifically, do you dispute, and why, Dr. Michael?
@%<
Jason James
One can tell when Tavish is losing the argument, he goes into his "Pork
Talk" mode (suuuey etc). It would appear that this alter ego is really his
main ego which invariably comes thru when Porker Tavish is under stress.
Just use your Pork Talk all the time Porky, we'll use the "Porksword
Decrypt key" to translate into English.
JJ
"Doc Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4uiqssvotl4mm1kq...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Aug 2000 20:18:14 GMT, cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>
> >In article <bvoiqssv7v8nrlhf6...@4ax.com>,
-snip anti Jewish garbage-
>
> Jealous NO! Nauseous YES!
>
> SUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEY SUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY
>
> Doc Tavish
>
> ---
> "..neo-Nazi news groups -- alt.politics.nationalism.white and
> alt.politics.white-power" Sara Salzman Labeling you all as neo-Nazis
> in a Westword magazine article.
> http://www.westword.com/issues/2000-08-10/feature3.html/page3.html
>
> >Sara
>
Gord McFee
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:06:25 +0100
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> Rev-White Ministries wrote:
>
> > It is clear Sara did not tell them the complete truth or she would of
> > mentioned the death threats done to Don Ellis and his family, she would of
> > confessed to calling him a chickenhawk, she would of confessed to claiming I
> > was Don Ellis over 100 times, she would of confessed that she used her 85
> > year old father to score points against Tavish, she would of confessed the
> > death threats done to Tavish etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
> There's a lot of things that she could have told them about attempts to silence
> revisionists in this newsgroup. Either she failed to do so, in which case she's
> guilty of not telling the whole truth, or she did tell them, in which case
> they're guilty of not printing the whole truth. She's rather unforthcoming about
> this.
You are rather less than forthcoming about these alleged "attempts to
silence revisionists in this newsgroup". Is that because you are
making them up? Or because you hope to deflect attention from *your*
activities?
--
Gord McFee
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Gord McFee
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:57:39 +0100
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Sara Salzman wrote:
>
> > In article <39A97F80...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
> > <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Sara Salzman wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <39A8F4A3...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
> > >> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Dear Ms Salzman
> > >> >
> > >> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
> > >>
> > >> No.
> > >
> > >Thank you. That is to your credit at least.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
> > >> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
> > >> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> No. The reporter read alt.revisionism as did her editor. They both checked
> > >> the Deja archives and did all the research themselves. And their attorneys
> > >> reviewed the article.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Michael.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Dr Michael, actually, Mrs Tucker.
> > >
> > >So you are telling us that you DID tell the reporter that such tactics have
> > >also been used against revisionists but that Westword deliberately failed to
> > >print this.
> > >
> > >Interesting.
> > >
> > No, that isn't what I said, you old liar.
> >
> > I told the reporter what I know. She did her research. Her editor did his
> > research. Their attorneys did their research.
>
> Did you or did you not neglect to tell them of the harassment experienced by
> revisionist posters in this group?
What harassment?
Sara Salzman
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>Sara Salzman wrote:
>
>> In article <39A97D30...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
>> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Fragano Ledgister wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Dear Ms Salzman
>> >> >
>> >> >1. Were you paid for your interview with Westword? Yes or no?
>> >>
>> >> Why do you want to know?
>> >>
>> >
>> >It would give us an insight into her motives.
>>
>> Well, you were wrong, weren't you?
>
>About what?
You're not THAT stupid, Mr.Michael. Why are you trying to sound like DOn Ellis?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >2. Did you neglect to mention that many of the same tactics that you
>> >> >purport to have been used against you are have also been used against
>> >> >revisionist posters to this newsgroup? If so, why?
>> >>
>> >> Are you claiming that she used those tactics? If so, make yourself clear.
>> >>
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> >I am suspicious that she might not have told the interviewer the whole
truth.
>> >
>> Well you were wrong.
>>
>
>You're contradicting yourself all over the place with this. Did you or
did you not
>mention the harassment experienced by revisionist posters to this newsgroup?
>
1. I haven't contradicted myself at all. If you think I did, post the proof.
2. It's none of your fucking business what I told the interviewer. I told
her the truth. She published the truth. Live with it.
3. I know you're just upset that you weren't mentioned, Mr. Michael. Sorry.
Sara Salzman
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>Sara Salzman wrote:
>
>> In article <39A98183...@onetel.net.uk>, david_michael
>> <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Doc Tavish wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:49 -0400, "Rev-White Ministries"
>> >> <pat_bl...@excite.com.X> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >They checked all the deja archives? What was their comment on you calling
>> >> >Don Ellis and Doc Tavish a pedophile on Jan 28, 2000?
>> >>
>> >> It's okay for Jews to do to us but we can't in turn do unto them because
>> >> we're not the chosen!
>> >>
>> >> Doc Tavish
>> >
>> >Unless the research for the article was done some time ago, it is a lie that
>> >they checked 'all' the deja archives. A large section of these archives has
>> >been unavailable for weeks due, we are told, to them changing servers.
>> >
>> >David
>> >
>>
>> Really? Then tell me, Einstein, what DATE did they begin researching?
>>
>
>I have no idea.
>
>>
>> Admit it, David. You're just upset because I didn't mention you and the BNP.
>>
>
>I'm sure you'll get around to it in due course.
>
Oh please, don't flatter yourself.
David Gehrig
<< snip >>
> >MY FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTERVIEW WAS WHEN I READ THE ARTICLE.
> >
> >
> >--
> >THE INNOCENT MAN
> >>>>>DON ELLIS<<<<
> >
>
> And if anyone believes that, I have a bridge to sell to them.
Maybe he means he was drunk off his ass when the reporter called.
@%<
AN INNOCENT MAN
--
PLEASE DON'T USE FOUL LANGUAGE. A CHILD COULD BE READING THIS AT ANY GIVEN
TIME.
--
THE INNOCENT MAN
>>>>DON ELLIS<<<<
"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-280...@ts009d46.den-co.concentric.net...
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20000828212211....@sympatico.ca> in alt.revisionism,
on Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:22:22 GMT, Gord McFee
<gord....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:06:25 +0100
>david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> There's a lot of things that she could have told them about
>> attempts to silence revisionists in this newsgroup. Either she
>> failed to do so, in which case she's guilty of not telling the
>> whole truth, or she did tell them, in which case they're guilty of
>> not printing the whole truth. She's rather unforthcoming about
>> this.
>You are rather less than forthcoming about these alleged "attempts
>to silence revisionists in this newsgroup". Is that because you are
>making them up? Or because you hope to deflect attention from *your*
>activities?
A little from Column A, a little from Column B.
- --
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/AwUBOattajfbIykA6SysEQK8lQCgtSbKiLxcC42mz5y6NUHKeNZEHsgAni6v
p6AIE2S1ysDAE6DoZRmtQqag
=fm/y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
mod...@my-deja.com
His activities appear to have nothing to do with "revisionism."
Is it worth to keep trying?
--
modacc
mod...@my-deja.com
"AN INNOCENT MAN" <don.e...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> --
> PLEASE DON'T USE FOUL LANGUAGE. A CHILD COULD BE READING THIS AT ANY
GIVEN
> TIME.
You mean yourself, Dr. David Michael and his herd of little men?
mod...@my-deja.com
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> Do you ever read the other posts in the threads to which you attempt
to
> contribute?
Do you ever contribute to the threads you read?
mod...@my-deja.com
I felt that Dr. Michael has some knowledge of journalism I do not.
Seems he's going to run away from both our questions.
Maybe we need to have a record of some kind that has all the questions
Dr. Michael runs from?
david_michael
Sara Salzman wrote:
Why is it 'none of my . . . business' what you told the interviewer?
Why are you so reluctant to answer straight questions about it?
Is it because you know that you only told the interviewer half the story?
mod...@my-deja.com
Why, are you a part of her problem?
> Why are you so reluctant to answer straight questions about it?
Why are you reluctant to debate the holocaust?
> Is it because you know that you only told the interviewer half the
story?
Is your reluctance because you really do not know the history of the
holocaust?
david_michael
Albrecht Kolthoff wrote:
> david_michael wrote:
>
> >Sara Salzman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> 2. It's none of your fucking business what I told the interviewer. I told
> >> her the truth. She published the truth. Live with it.
>
> [...]
>
> >Why is it 'none of my . . . business' what you told the interviewer?
> >
> >Why are you so reluctant to answer straight questions about it?
> >
> >Is it because you know that you only told the interviewer half the story?
>
> Someone supposed Mr. Michael BHS would be envious because he wasn't even
> mentioned. Probably that would have been the other half of the story.
>
> --
> Albrecht Kolthoff
Let's recap. Ms Salzman has an interview in which she complains about alleged
intimidation arising from her posts here. She has not, let it be noted, been
physically harmed nor has her property been damaged in any way, but she
complains at length about people doing and saying nasty things. The article
spectacularly fails to mention that much of what she has purportedly endured has
also been suffered by revisionist posters. It is reasonable to enquire whether
this is because Ms Salzman failed to mention this, or whether she DID mention it
and the magazine chose not to print it.
When I ask Ms Salzman to clarify this she tells me that it is none of my
business and swears at me.
Is she really deserving of sympathy? Sure, some of the things that have been
done to her and said about her seem fairly shitty -- but then some of the things
she's done to others fall into the same category.
Now Mr Kolthoff comes along and makes his usual snide insinuations, quite
unsupported by any evidence, and asks whether I am envious that I am not
mentioned. Readers can draw their own conclusions about Mr Kolthoff from that.
mod...@my-deja.com
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
"Let's recap. Ms Salzman has an interview in which she complains about
alleged intimidation arising from her posts here."
Calling her a pig. Hurling pig calls. Listing her address. Relaying
death threats to that address via the Nizkor Phonebook and other
places. Listing her neighbors. Reporting her father's name, address and
phone number. So on and on. This is intimidation and she does post here
in this news group.
" She has not, let it be noted, been
physically harmed"
Thank G-d for that, Dr. Michael. Seems that this is the case despite
several threats to harm her and others. I add "and others."
" nor has her property been damaged in any way, but she"
Her piece of mind is also her property.
"complains at length about people doing and saying nasty things. The
article spectacularly fails to mention that much of what she has
purportedly endured has also been suffered by revisionist posters."
Not by anyone posting here that I can see, Dr. Michael. What you are
doing is what the Nazis did. They punished people by group and
association without any thought to what each individual actually did.
" It is reasonable to enquire whether
this is because Ms Salzman failed to mention this, or whether she DID
mention it and the magazine chose not to print it."
Why don't you write a letter to the editor and report back to us the
response?
"When I ask Ms Salzman to clarify this she tells me that it is none of
my business and swears at me."
Good for her. You have no value.
"Is she really deserving of sympathy? Sure, some of the things that
have been done to her and said about her seem fairly shitty -- but then
some of the things she's done to others fall into the same category."
And you are after your behaviour to Mr. Morris. I think not.
"Now Mr Kolthoff comes along and makes his usual snide insinuations, "
Like you do in the torture thread and the Eichmann thread? Have you no
logic to your thinking?
"quite unsupported by any evidence, and asks whether I am envious that
I am not mentioned. Readers can draw their own conclusions about Mr
Kolthoff from that. "
Something is bothering you to be so concerned about that which you
claim doesn't concern you.
M. A. B.
david_michael
mod...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39ABE027...@onetel.net.uk>,
> > Why is it 'none of my . . . business' what you told the interviewer?
>
> Why, are you a part of her problem?
Answer the question.
>
> > Why are you so reluctant to answer straight questions about it?
>
> Why are you reluctant to debate the holocaust?
>
It's very difficult to find anyone to debate it with at the moment. I've had
some interesting discussions here in the past but the current crop of
anti-revisionists seem to limit their arguments to 'you are a [insert term
of abuse]' -- and thus interaction with them is rather tedious and a
complete waste of time.
>
> > Is it because you know that you only told the interviewer half the
> story?
>
> Is your reluctance because you really do not know the history of the
> holocaust?
>
Answer the question. YOUR question is answered above.
>
> --
> modacc
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
mod...@my-deja.com
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > > Why is it 'none of my . . . business' what you told the
interviewer?
> >
> > Why, are you a part of her problem?
>
> Answer the question.
No one died and put you in charge, Dr. Michael. It's simply none of
your business as far she is concerned. As far as I am concerned it is
very much none of your business unless you are a part of her problem?
So answer that question, Dr. Michael.
> > > Why are you so reluctant to answer straight questions about it?
> >
> > Why are you reluctant to debate the holocaust?
> >
>
> It's very difficult to find anyone to debate it with at the moment.
I'm right here. What is happening is you definately cannot control the
debate so you run. Waht is also quite obvious is that you do not have a
handle on the history itself.
I've had
> some interesting discussions here in the past but the current crop of
> anti-revisionists seem to limit their arguments to 'you are a [insert
term
> of abuse]' -- and thus interaction with them is rather tedious and a
> complete waste of time.
Sure, Dr. Michael, the fault is nowhere to be found in yourself. Do you
ever visit yourself in your psychology practise?
> >
> > > Is it because you know that you only told the interviewer half the
> > story?
> >
> > Is your reluctance because you really do not know the history of the
> > holocaust?
> >
>
> Answer the question. YOUR question is answered above.
Are you a part of her problem?
david_michael
mod...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39ABE80C...@onetel.net.uk>,
> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "Let's recap. Ms Salzman has an interview in which she complains about
> alleged intimidation arising from her posts here."
>
> Calling her a pig.
And you have never called anyone names on alt.revisionism?
> Hurling pig calls.
Don't make me laugh!
> Listing her address.
Numerous revisionists have had their addresses listed right here. I've had
a couple of damn good attempts to try to find mine.
> Relaying
> death threats to that address via the Nizkor Phonebook and other
> places.
I've had death threats. So?
> Listing her neighbors.
Same has happened to revisionist posters.
> Reporting her father's name, address and
> phone number. So on and on. This is intimidation and she does post here
> in this news group.
>
The point is not that it isn't intimidation but rather that we all have to
put up with it. But this is not mentioned in the article.
I try to establish why not.
I ask her whether she told them both sides of the story or whether she told
them only one side of the story, leaving them to believe that only
anti-revisionists suffer these things.
She swears at me and tells me that it's none of my business.
>
> " She has not, let it be noted, been
> physically harmed"
>
> Thank G-d for that, Dr. Michael.
Indeed. Others were not so lucky.
William Grosvenor apparently got firebombed.
Funny how Salzman never mentioned THAT.
> Seems that this is the case despite
> several threats to harm her and others. I add "and others."
>
> " nor has her property been damaged in any way, but she"
>
> Her piece of mind is also her property.
>
Peace of mind.
As you wish.
>
> "complains at length about people doing and saying nasty things. The
> article spectacularly fails to mention that much of what she has
> purportedly endured has also been suffered by revisionist posters."
>
> Not by anyone posting here that I can see, Dr. Michael.
Liar.
> What you are
> doing is what the Nazis did.
I am answering your post on Usenet. The Nazis did not do that.
> They punished people by group and
> association without any thought to what each individual actually did.
>
Heh, well I think you'll find that all sides did that in World War II. The
American treatment of the Japanese, Stalin's treatment of various national
groups, etc. etc.
>
> " It is reasonable to enquire whether
> this is because Ms Salzman failed to mention this, or whether she DID
> mention it and the magazine chose not to print it."
>
> Why don't you write a letter to the editor and report back to us the
> response?
>
The principal factor has been lack of time. I have horrendous deadlines all
this week and am about to sue Philips for failing to honour their contract
regarding a crap fax machine that they've sold me.
Never buy anything from Philips.
(The Dutch one, not Richard Philips.)
>
> "When I ask Ms Salzman to clarify this she tells me that it is none of
> my business and swears at me."
>
> Good for her. You have no value.
>
Uh? Care to elaborate?
> "Is she really deserving of sympathy? Sure, some of the things that
> have been done to her and said about her seem fairly shitty -- but then
> some of the things she's done to others fall into the same category."
>
> And you are after your behaviour to Mr. Morris. I think not.
>
Doesn't make sense. Try English.
>
> "Now Mr Kolthoff comes along and makes his usual snide insinuations, "
>
> Like you do in the torture thread and the Eichmann thread?
No, I present reasons why Eichmann's writings and utterances should be
doubted.
Mr Kolthoff makes his accusations by insinuation and does not provide
reasons for them.
> Have you no
> logic to your thinking?
>
Probably more than most in this forum.
>
> "quite unsupported by any evidence, and asks whether I am envious that
> I am not mentioned. Readers can draw their own conclusions about Mr
> Kolthoff from that. "
>
> Something is bothering you to be so concerned about that which you
> claim doesn't concern you.
>
Doesn't make sense.
>
> M. A. B.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Must go for tea.
David
Philip Mathews
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> mod...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <39ABE80C...@onetel.net.uk>,
> > david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >
> > "Let's recap. Ms Salzman has an interview in which she complains
about
> > alleged intimidation arising from her posts here."
> >
> > Calling her a pig.
>
> And you have never called anyone names on alt.revisionism?
>
> > Hurling pig calls.
>
> Don't make me laugh!
>
> > Listing her address.
>
> Numerous revisionists have had their addresses listed right here. I've
had
> a couple of damn good attempts to try to find mine.
The difference is we consider that wrong. You apparently don't.
>
> > Relaying
> > death threats to that address via the Nizkor Phonebook and other
> > places.
>
> I've had death threats. So?
So, it's wrong. That you are unwilling to pursue the matter is your
business.
>
> > Listing her neighbors.
>
> Same has happened to revisionist posters.
So? Doesn't make it right, correct?
>
> > Reporting her father's name, address and
> > phone number. So on and on. This is intimidation and she does post
here
> > in this news group.
> >
>
> The point is not that it isn't intimidation but rather that we all
have to
> put up with it. But this is not mentioned in the article.
It is false that we all have to put up with what Sara has put up with.
Each and every item of harrassment which Sara has endured is wrong. It
doesn't matter one iota that others have experienced some of these
things. Unlike the actions of Nazihunter, the actions against Sara have
not been condemned by you and yours. You have even approved some of
them. That's the difference between the two sides that no amount of
obfuscation will conceal. The Westwood article was about Sara and
harassment she has received. It was not about what you would have liked
it to be about. If you have a problem with it, you or Don Ellis could
always contact the paper and talk to them about it. But that would mean
coming out from under your rock, right Mr. Michael?
--
Philip Mathews