Clash in Westerbork documentation and Auschwitz documentation

0 views
Skip to first unread message

colonel_...@yahoo.com.au

unread,
Feb 5, 2005, 8:45:54 PM2/5/05
to
According to Westerbork on the 19 May a transport left carrying 453
including
199 Men
220 Women
34 Children

According to the Auschwitz Kalendrium on the 21 May a transport from
Westerbork arrived with 453 on board and
250 men were assigned numbers a-2846 to a-3095
and 100 women who were assigned a-5242 to a-5341

The other 103 were gassed.

However, even if the children were all males you still wouldnt have
enough males on board to provide the numbers that were registered as
male prisoners.

Small slip up. Easily sorted

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 1:40:38 AM2/6/05
to
Evidence?

colonel_...@yahoo.com.au

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 1:48:40 AM2/6/05
to
The transport book of Westerbork, a fascimile is in the Anne Frank
Definitive edition.
the Kalendrium is by Danuta Czech.

Its just something your fact checkers ought to pick up on.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 1:51:50 AM2/6/05
to
> a fascimile is in the Anne Frank
Definitive edition

Page?

colonel_...@yahoo.com.au

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 1:54:21 AM2/6/05
to
Oh the first couple of chapters I think. Its not far in. Certainly
before the Diary starts.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:18:16 AM2/6/05
to
So once again you have no source for your contention.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:36:55 AM2/6/05
to
OK, you're correct here, there is a discrepancy between Czech p. 630
and Anne Frank Rev. Crit. Ed. p. 51.

I must even thank you for drawing my attention to this source.

You see, you have helped to solve a problem which Mattogno posed in
his book about the bunkers of Auschwitz. He wrote:

"On October 17, 1963, in Vienna, Dov Paisikovic wrote a report on his
experience as a member of the so-called special unit at Auschwitz. As
he states
frequently, Paisikovic (born at Rakowec, then in Czechoslovakia, on
April 1, 1924) was deported to Auschwitz from the ghetto at Munkacs
(Hungary) in May 1944 and was registered with ID no. A-3076. However,
according to Danuta Czech's Chronicle, the ID nos. A-2846 through
A-3095 were assigned to 250 Dutch Jews coming from the Westerbork
camp."

Now we know that Czech got it wrong somehow. It's not the first time I
notice such kinds of mistakes in her books, of course.

Ron Jacobson

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:42:07 AM2/6/05
to
In article <1107675415.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Sergey Romanov <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

Mistakes happen. The book quotes numerous documents, after all.

Maybe the "colonel" will now explain far more serious "mistakes",
for example the "Lachout document"?

RJ.

-- "I have no interest in promoting or perpetuating false legends,
and I feel it is important that in this respect the record should be
set straight." -- David Irving, on the "Dresden bombing".

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:42:55 AM2/6/05
to
> in her books

book

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:44:39 AM2/6/05
to
What? Czech's book contains mistakes? Perhaps it is a forgery?

;]]

Roger

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:52:09 AM2/6/05
to
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sergey Romanov wrote
in message
<1107672038.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

>Evidence?

That you destroy context in your replies?

Right here...

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 3:13:58 AM2/6/05
to
Gee, you must think this is fun. No, context is not destroyed. Anyone
can click on a tree of messages and see the context. If someone's
newsreader doesn't allow it, delete it and use Google, for all I care.

Roger

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 3:37:47 AM2/6/05
to
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sergey Romanov wrote
in message
<1107677638.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

>Gee, you must think this is fun. No, context is not destroyed.

Really? I see none here...

>Anyone
>can click on a tree of messages and see the context.

... if they are using Google.

>If someone's
>newsreader doesn't allow it, delete it and use Google, for all I care.

The point is, that with just a little consideration for one's
audience, one does not have to make them jump thru hoops in order to
make up for your lack of manners.

You will, of course, continue to do whatever you choose, and in fact
would appear to make such choices on the terribly adult basis of what
might piss someone off.

I will go on pointing out your lack of maturity and netiquette, if it
amuses me to do so.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 3:50:14 AM2/6/05
to
As was point out to our little lying rogie, I simply use Google's quick
reply feature. That this is something that I do to piss anyone off is
simply a projection of rogie's own little complexes :]

Roger

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 3:59:54 AM2/6/05
to
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sergey Romanov wrote
in message
<1107679814....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>As was point out to our little lying rogie, I simply use Google's quick
>reply feature. That this is something that I do to piss anyone off is
>simply a projection of rogie's own little complexes :]

One notes that "sergey" declines to exercise manners like an adult.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:11:00 AM2/6/05
to
One notes that rogie doesn't set the manners here :]

However, if at least two anti-deniers here (except Joebruno, you and
Gord) will tell me that my way of non-quoting messages inconveniences
them, I will try to always quote the previous messages. :]

Roger

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:21:11 AM2/6/05
to
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sergey Romanov wrote
in message
<1107681060.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>One notes that rogie doesn't set the manners here :]

Manners are a societal thing -- *no* one entity sets them.

Which makes this just another excuse for "sergey" to offer his lame
insult.

>However, if at least two anti-deniers here (except Joebruno, you and
>Gord) will tell me that my way of non-quoting messages inconveniences
>them, I will try to always quote the previous messages. :]

Why exclude Gord?

Message has been deleted

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 5:44:02 AM2/6/05
to
When you're critiquing something, make sure to get your facts straight,
or one might think that you're trying to deceive.

1) I did not post "addresses[sic]". I posted a single address.

2) Your message indicates that I did this _because_ I disagree with
someone. This is false. This was a personal act of revenge and had
nothing to with whether the person involved agreed or disagreed with
me.

Nevertheless, that's one vote.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 6:03:07 AM2/6/05
to
Well, what would one expect after he called me an ass?

Kenneth McVay OBC

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 7:31:54 AM2/6/05
to
In article <1107681060.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

No context is provided, so no one has any idea who you are responding to, or WHAT you are responding
to. For that reason, I'm removing your posts from my reader.

<plonk>

--
"In the final analysis, one does not refute a closed system, a total
lie that is not refutable to the extent that its conclusions has
preceded any evidence." (Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. Assassins of Memory,
New York: Columbia University Press. p.81)

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 7:35:48 AM2/6/05
to
Gut, no inconvenience here :]

philip...@comcast.net

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 9:50:12 AM2/6/05
to

<colonel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1107672520....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

LOL!

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

philip...@comcast.net

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 10:18:39 AM2/6/05
to

"Sergey Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote in message
news:1107687787.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Well, what would one expect after he called me an ass?

Actually Sergey he said you were "being an ass".

Just so you know, in English that is not the same thing as saying you
are an ass.

We all act like asses from time to time, and many of us here to debate
deniers have had disagreements over the years.

We reconcile them and move on.

By the way, I do miss the context of threads in your posting style.

Message has been deleted

Sara Salzman

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 11:10:10 AM2/6/05
to

Sergey:

I believe I have mentioned before that it is important for us to follow
the thread properly, and that involves quoting the salient parts of the
post to which you are responding.

I'm not going to get involved in any pissing matches with anyone. I just
want you to know that I, for one, would prefer it if you did quote the
context of your replies.

With my newsreader (which is an excellent one, and one that I have used
since long before Google existed), once I read a post, it is gone.
Therefore, I cannot see a "tree" of posts, only a tree of unread ones.
If I read a post on Monday, and your response comes on Tuesday, I have
no way of knowing what you are responding to.

Hope this helps,
Sara

--
I'm not a denier..Some Jews died of typhus and stuff, I will acknowledge
that..
--- Little Child Tommie

Roger

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 12:44:33 PM2/6/05
to
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sergey Romanov wrote
in message
<1107687787.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

>Well, what would one expect after he called me an ass?

For you to realize that you have been acting like one, and resolve to
change that behaviour?

Roger

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 1:01:41 PM2/6/05
to
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Sergey Romanov wrote
in message
<1107686642.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

>2) Your message indicates that I did this _because_ I disagree with
>someone. This is false. This was a personal act of revenge and had
>nothing to with whether the person involved agreed or disagreed with
>me.

Ignoring that this was supposedly in revenge for nothing that was
posted in this group, making this yet another indication of "sergey's"
lack of understanding of how *adults* conduct themselves...

Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 1:35:12 PM2/6/05
to

HEY! [alphabetically to boot!] Roger! Sergey!

And I do this ONLY because this is the latest post to appear [at least
on my screen and time stamped `1:01 PM [EST] ....

How about this as a possible 'arbitration' solution: I make no comment
either way to any of the, shall we say, aggrieved posters, and it ENDS
here with the proviso that if one of the parties starts it up again and
noting this neutral effort at arbitration, hey, then the initiator of
further negative swaps becomes the one who is simply looking to
perpetuate the damn thing! Sound fair? No response is even needed-- just
let the thing die a natural death and move on. End of story. And I won't
bother again but it's just an admittedly unsolicited effort for and to
two posters to let things cool [read: chill out] and let my my own post
be the 'last word' .


Doc Tony

PS: It's now 1:34 PM [EST] as I type this. I've clicked "get messages"
twice and I don't see anything from either of you so, hey, do as you
wish but at least there 'is' a 'neutral' solution.

Roger

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 1:50:53 PM2/6/05
to
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo wrote
in message <42066360...@localnet.com>:

>Roger wrote:

I've offered a truce --"sergey" prefers public tantrums.

Roger

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 1:57:18 PM2/6/05
to
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Roger wrote
in message <bnpc01l0lfqchg6nj...@4ax.com>:

To clarify: I've offered not to mention "sergey's" thuggish behaviour
if zie stops lying that I have engaged in it myself.

I will so refrain in any thread in which we interact.

Given that zie has acknowledged that zir behaviour was wrong, and said
that he would not do it again, the end of zir lies about *my*
behaviour will suffice.

I won't even expect zie to apologize for those lies, altho that would
be the adult thing to do.

I will refrain from *any* comment on this matter from right now, 12:54
CDT on Sunday, the 6th of February for the space of 24 hours so that
"sergey" has time to agree.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:33:29 PM2/6/05
to

philip...@comcast.net wrote:
> "Sergey Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote in message
> news:1107687787.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Well, what would one expect after he called me an ass?
>
> Actually Sergey he said you were "being an ass".
>
> Just so you know, in English that is not the same thing as saying you

> are an ass.
>
> We all act like asses from time to time, and many of us here to
debate
> deniers have had disagreements over the years.
>
> We reconcile them and move on.
>
> By the way, I do miss the context of threads in your posting style.

Thanks, Philip. As for Gord, if he would say something like "you both
were acting like an asses", I wouldn't object to that. It is notable,
however, that he was talking about me only. So just as he recommends to
ignore me, I will ignore him.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:35:13 PM2/6/05
to

Thanks for your input, Sara. I will try to quote the messages in the
future.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 2:40:10 PM2/6/05
to

Do what you will, Doc. I see in the messages in this thread Roger was
still distorting my name, but anyway, I leave him alone and not gonna
dicuss non-Holocaust issues with him (actually I think it's useless to
discuss anything with him.)

sc...@free.info

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 3:39:24 PM2/6/05
to
Let him spout off. The poor guy get's his fanny whacked everywhere he
goes and now you're treating him like Art Tandy.
Do you want to give him a complex? Can't you see he's about ready to
spontaneously combust?

--
Watch the attacks that are personal--argumentum ad hominem--the last desperate
refuge of the debater who has no case.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 3:56:01 PM2/6/05
to

sc...@free.info wrote:
> Let him spout off. The poor guy get's his fanny whacked everywhere
he
> goes and now you're treating him like Art Tandy.

A very good comparison.

> Do you want to give him a complex? Can't you see he's about ready to

> spontaneously combust?

Let's just assume that you were talking about yourself. After all, it's
you who is getting your ass kicked constantly.

Gord McFee

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:08:00 PM2/6/05
to

If you need to be told that being inconsiderate to the other posters in
this newsgroup is impolite and inhibits a decent discussion, then you
are not worth telling.

--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time

Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org

Gord McFee

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:08:55 PM2/6/05
to

He's pouting because I dared to point out he is acting like an ass.

Gord McFee

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:11:20 PM2/6/05
to
On 2/6/2005 6:03 AM, Sergey Romanov wrote:

> Well, what would one expect after he called me an ass?

I didn't say you were an ass. Had I wanted to, I would have made it
abundantly clear. I said you were acting like an ass, which you were
and still are.

Gord McFee

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:15:26 PM2/6/05
to
On 2/6/2005 7:35 AM, Sergey Romanov wrote:

> Gut, no inconvenience here :]

I can see why you cut the context. By doing that, you hope no one will
know you just replied to someone who plonked you.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:18:08 PM2/6/05
to

Gord McFee wrote:
> On 2/6/2005 6:03 AM, Sergey Romanov wrote:
>
> > Well, what would one expect after he called me an ass?
>
> I didn't say you were an ass. Had I wanted to, I would have made it
> abundantly clear. I said you were acting like an ass, which you were
> and still are.

Let's see if you will dare to say the same to the "other side".

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:20:46 PM2/6/05
to

Gord McFee wrote:
> On 2/6/2005 7:35 AM, Sergey Romanov wrote:
>
> > Gut, no inconvenience here :]
>
> I can see why you cut the context. By doing that, you hope no one
will
> know you just replied to someone who plonked you.

Now you're being an ass/ I just used Google's quick reply feature.

Hilary Ostrov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:29:40 PM2/6/05
to
On 6 Feb 2005 01:11:00 -0800, in

>One notes that rogie doesn't set the manners here :]

You've snipped the context, but I assume that, in the rather juvenile
and uncalled for way that one has come to expect from the likes of
Carpenter and Bellinger, you are speaking of Roger.

However, regardless of whom you might have been addressing, if you had
taken the time to observe the posting patterns in this newsgroup, you
would have noticed that dishonest post-butchery - such as you've
chosen to engage in since you first arrived in alt.revisionism - is
overwhelmingly the domain of deniers.

In any event, it would do you no harm to learn and respect the
time-honoured "manners" of netiquette on USENET:

http://tinyurl.com/4asjo

>However, if at least two anti-deniers here (except Joebruno, you and
>Gord)

I'm curious, Mr. Romanov ... what makes you think that your shoot from
the lip discourse is an improvement on that of Joe Bruno?

>will tell me that my way of non-quoting messages inconveniences
>them, I will try to always quote the previous messages. :]

I, for one, have noticed that this inconsiderate - and, some would
say, dishonest - posting pattern of yours predated the advent of the
current Google interface, so that's hardly an excuse. That you have
chosen to repeatedly "respond" in this fashion does you a great
disservice.

If you insist on emulating the Bruno and/or Bellinger and/or Blandish
entities (and others of their respective ilk), you'd better get used
to the fact that, in the eyes of some, your own credibility has been
reduced to theirs.

hro
--
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://vex.net/~nizkor/

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:59:14 PM2/6/05
to

Hilary Ostrov wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2005 01:11:00 -0800, in
> <1107681060.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Sergey
> Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:
>
> >One notes that rogie doesn't set the manners here :]
>
> You've snipped the context, but I assume that, in the rather juvenile
> and uncalled for way that one has come to expect from the likes of
> Carpenter and Bellinger, you are speaking of Roger.

Indeed, how did you guess?

As for "uncalled for", what reasons do you have to make such a
conclusion? Have you been following "discussions" between me and Roger,
you would know that it's mutual. Strangely, you "forgot" to point that
out to Roger.

> However, regardless of whom you might have been addressing, if you
had
> taken the time to observe the posting patterns in this newsgroup, you
> would have noticed that dishonest post-butchery - such as you've
> chosen to engage in since you first arrived in alt.revisionism

Concrete representative examples should follow here.

- is
> overwhelmingly the domain of deniers.
>
> In any event, it would do you no harm to learn and respect the
> time-honoured "manners" of netiquette on USENET:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4asjo

The main rule of netiquette is to know what you're talking about. Let's
see concrete representative examples, backing up your claims.

Here are all my postings here:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/search?q=author:sergey.romanov+group:alt.revisionism&start=800&scoring=d&filter=0&


>
> >However, if at least two anti-deniers here (except Joebruno, you and
> >Gord)
>
> I'm curious, Mr. Romanov ... what makes you think that your shoot
from
> the lip discourse is an improvement on that of Joe Bruno?

Let's see the substantiation of the "shoot from the lip" phrase.
Otherwise I can just say the same about you.

> >will tell me that my way of non-quoting messages inconveniences
> >them, I will try to always quote the previous messages. :]
>
> I, for one, have noticed that this inconsiderate - and, some would
> say, dishonest - posting pattern of yours predated the advent of the
> current Google interface, so that's hardly an excuse.

If you won't be able to back up your claim, one can only assume that
your accusation was made in bad faith.


That you have
> chosen to repeatedly "respond" in this fashion does you a great
> disservice.
>
> If you insist on emulating the Bruno and/or Bellinger and/or Blandish
> entities (and others of their respective ilk), you'd better get used
> to the fact that, in the eyes of some, your own credibility has been
> reduced to theirs.

Now you're being an ass. Of course, I chose to emulate no one.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 5:01:01 PM2/6/05
to

Gord McFee wrote:
> On 2/6/2005 4:21 AM, Roger wrote:
>
> > In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> > (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> > someone claiming to be Sergey Romanov wrote
> > in message
> > <1107681060.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> >
> >>One notes that rogie doesn't set the manners here :]
> >
> >
> > Manners are a societal thing -- *no* one entity sets them.
> >
> > Which makes this just another excuse for "sergey" to offer his lame
> > insult.
> >
> >
> >>However, if at least two anti-deniers here (except Joebruno, you
and
> >>Gord) will tell me that my way of non-quoting messages
inconveniences
> >>them, I will try to always quote the previous messages. :]
> >
> > Why exclude Gord?
>
> He's pouting because I dared to point out he is acting like an ass.

Rather, I'm disgusted with a one-sided approach. Mr. McFee never dared
to point out that Roger was behaving like an ass.

Hilary Ostrov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 6:15:25 PM2/6/05
to
On 6 Feb 2005 13:59:14 -0800, in
<1107727154.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Sergey
Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

>Hilary Ostrov wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2005 01:11:00 -0800, in
>> <1107681060.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Sergey
>> Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

>> >One notes that rogie doesn't set the manners here :]

>> You've snipped the context, but I assume that, in the rather juvenile
>> and uncalled for way that one has come to expect from the likes of
>> Carpenter and Bellinger, you are speaking of Roger.

>Indeed, how did you guess?

Sarcasm does not become you - and it certainly isn't helping your
"case".

>As for "uncalled for", what reasons do you have to make such a
>conclusion?

How many posts have you made here in the last week or so, Mr.
Romanov?! However many there are, divide 'em by 2 and those are my
reasons.

>Have you been following "discussions" between me and Roger,

To the extent that *your* postings have permitted actually "following"
*any* discussions, yes, I have.

>you would know that it's mutual.

Because *you* said so?! That may be good enough for you, but it isn't
for me.

>Strangely, you "forgot" to point that
>out to Roger.

I wasn't responding to one of Roger's posts, I was responding to
*your* invitation - in case you hadn't noticed.

>> However, regardless of whom you might have been addressing, if you
>> had taken the time to observe the posting patterns in this newsgroup,
>> you would have noticed that dishonest post-butchery - such as you've
>> chosen to engage in since you first arrived in alt.revisionism

>Concrete representative examples should follow here.

Really?! Oh, well, here's one:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/850e4d0c09d76c7d

and there are others in that same thread - as there are in this
current thread.

> - is
>> overwhelmingly the domain of deniers.

>> In any event, it would do you no harm to learn and respect the
>> time-honoured "manners" of netiquette on USENET:

>> http://tinyurl.com/4asjo

>The main rule of netiquette is to know what you're talking about.

Not necessarily - but it certainly does help if one is making
pronouncements. Although, on USENET it's probably more important to
*demonstrate* that one knows what one is talking about, than to merely
claim that one does. However, the applicable rule in this instance has
equal weight. Perhaps its time for you to do a little homework and
figure out what the applicable rule is that Roger was referring to.

>Let's
>see concrete representative examples, backing up your claims.

Oh, well ... thanks for demonstrating that one can lead an arrogant
twit to evidence but one cannot make him think.

>Here are all my postings here:

>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/search?q=author:sergey.romanov+group:alt.revisionism&start=800&scoring=d&filter=0&

>> >However, if at least two anti-deniers here (except Joebruno, you and
>> >Gord)

>> I'm curious, Mr. Romanov ... what makes you think that your shoot
>> from the lip discourse is an improvement on that of Joe Bruno?

>Let's see the substantiation of the "shoot from the lip" phrase.

Perhaps you should develop the habit of reading your own posts before
you hit the send key.

But that aside, the matter which started the acrimony ball rolling,
i.e. your inappropriate posting of the personal details of an
individual (one who does not even post here) - *and* your sustained
defense of this insupportable action after it was pointed out how
wrong you were - are good examples from where I sit.

[rest deleted]

Time to grow-up, acknowledge your errors, graciously accept the advice
that has been given to you, and move on, don't you think, Mr.
Romanov?!

Sara Salzman

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 6:50:52 PM2/6/05
to
In article <1107727154.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Sergey Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

First you get angry at Gord for saying you are "acting like an ass."

Then you respond to Hilary's very cogent points by directly calling her
an ass.

This, Mr. Romanov, is a classic case of Pot. Kettle. Black.

It's also childish.

Although I have tried to be polite and patient and encouraging, I think
the time has come to move on, or stop sniping at everyone who disagrees
with you.

At one time, Roger and I had a very large disagreement. We took it
private, never resolved it, but decided that working together was more
important than arguing about minor differences.

That's what grown-ups do.

Sara Salzman

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 6:52:13 PM2/6/05
to
In article <1107724846....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sergey Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

Again.... if being told that you're "acting like an ass" upsets you so
much, why do you respond by calling (now) TWO people "asses?"

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 7:00:06 PM2/6/05
to

Sara Salzman wrote:
> In article <1107724846....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sergey Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:
>
> > Gord McFee wrote:
> > > On 2/6/2005 7:35 AM, Sergey Romanov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gut, no inconvenience here :]
> > >
> > > I can see why you cut the context. By doing that, you hope no one
> > will
> > > know you just replied to someone who plonked you.
> >
> > Now you're being an ass/ I just used Google's quick reply feature.
>
> Again.... if being told that you're "acting like an ass" upsets you
so
> much, why do you respond by calling (now) TWO people "asses?"


But as has been explained here, it's not really calling someone an ass,
so it must be OK.

;]

Sara Salzman

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 7:22:42 PM2/6/05
to
In article <1107734406....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sergey Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

So you have problems with reading comprehension? I don't think so, I
think you're being contrary.

"You are an ass."

"You are acting like an ass."

These are two completely different concepts: BEING and "acting like."

Do you not see this?

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 7:31:06 PM2/6/05
to

But it has been explained that the following phrase by Mr. Mcfee is not
really equal to calling someone an ass.

"Why Sergey is being such an ass"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/cc498b38908a99e7?dmode=source

The explanation is here:

"Just so you know, in English that is not the same thing as saying you
are an ass."

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/messages/d6e218243123c963,4b18566e99bda491,1ce14fdb0a117ae0,eaca1f5c91d4771d,05b72f8e25905481,6b7fdb2e61381889,43d7e90d0f6ecc2c,da3e289670211281,6fe6053a7f59516b,b90b11fdec95ce9c?thread_id=49b4392976de4c96&mode=thread&noheader=1#doc_6b7fdb2e61381889

Since I used that same phrase, I wasn't saying that the people to whom
I were replying were asses. Rather that they were acting like asses.
Right?

Gord McFee

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 10:45:28 PM2/6/05
to

You still replied to someone who just plonked you.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 6:31:12 AM2/7/05
to

Gord McFee wrote:
> On 2/6/2005 4:20 PM, Sergey Romanov wrote:
>
> > Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/6/2005 7:35 AM, Sergey Romanov wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Gut, no inconvenience here :]
> >>
> >>I can see why you cut the context. By doing that, you hope no one
> >
> > will
> >
> >>know you just replied to someone who plonked you.
> >
> > Now you're being an ass/ I just used Google's quick reply feature.
>
> You still replied to someone who just plonked you.

Whatever. May be this is some kind of game you're playing in Usenet.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 7:04:29 AM2/7/05
to

Hilary Ostrov wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2005 13:59:14 -0800, in
> <1107727154.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Sergey
> Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:
>
> >Hilary Ostrov wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2005 01:11:00 -0800, in
> >> <1107681060.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Sergey
> >> Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:
>
> >> >One notes that rogie doesn't set the manners here :]
>
> >> You've snipped the context, but I assume that, in the rather
juvenile
> >> and uncalled for way that one has come to expect from the likes of
> >> Carpenter and Bellinger, you are speaking of Roger.
>
> >Indeed, how did you guess?
>
> Sarcasm does not become you - and it certainly isn't helping your
> "case".


I have no "case" before you, sorry.


> >As for "uncalled for", what reasons do you have to make such a
> >conclusion?
>
> How many posts have you made here in the last week or so, Mr.
> Romanov?! However many there are, divide 'em by 2 and those are my
> reasons.


That's hardly an answer. You haven't substantiated your statement about
"uncalled for" name-calling.


> >Have you been following "discussions" between me and Roger,
>
> To the extent that *your* postings have permitted actually
"following"
> *any* discussions, yes, I have.


Then you must have seen that the name-calling was mutual.


> >you would know that it's mutual.
>
> Because *you* said so?! That may be good enough for you, but it
isn't
> for me.


No, because it's all in the postings you allege to have read.


> >Strangely, you "forgot" to point that
> >out to Roger.
>
> I wasn't responding to one of Roger's posts, I was responding to
> *your* invitation - in case you hadn't noticed.


But my "invitation" had nothing to do with Roger, if you hadn't
noticed.


> >> However, regardless of whom you might have been addressing, if you
> >> had taken the time to observe the posting patterns in this
newsgroup,
> >> you would have noticed that dishonest post-butchery - such as
you've
> >> chosen to engage in since you first arrived in alt.revisionism
>
> >Concrete representative examples should follow here.
>
> Really?! Oh, well, here's one:
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/850e4d0c09d76c7d
>
> and there are others in that same thread - as there are in this
> current thread.


Wrong. Where are representative examples of my non-quoting posts? The
message you posted contained both your name and the part of text I was
responding to.


> > - is
> >> overwhelmingly the domain of deniers.
>
> >> In any event, it would do you no harm to learn and respect the
> >> time-honoured "manners" of netiquette on USENET:
>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/4asjo
>
> >The main rule of netiquette is to know what you're talking about.
>
> Not necessarily - but it certainly does help if one is making
> pronouncements. Although, on USENET it's probably more important to
> *demonstrate* that one knows what one is talking about, than to
merely
> claim that one does. However, the applicable rule in this instance
has
> equal weight. Perhaps its time for you to do a little homework and
> figure out what the applicable rule is that Roger was referring to.
>
> >Let's
> >see concrete representative examples, backing up your claims.
>
> Oh, well ... thanks for demonstrating that one can lead an arrogant
> twit to evidence but one cannot make him think.


You mean, asking an arrogant twit for evidence, which (s)he can't
provide?


> >> I'm curious, Mr. Romanov ... what makes you think that your shoot
> >> from the lip discourse is an improvement on that of Joe Bruno?
>
> >Let's see the substantiation of the "shoot from the lip" phrase.
>
> Perhaps you should develop the habit of reading your own posts before
> you hit the send key.
>
> But that aside, the matter which started the acrimony ball rolling,
> i.e. your inappropriate posting of the personal details of an
> individual (one who does not even post here) - *and* your sustained
> defense of this insupportable action after it was pointed out how
> wrong you were - are good examples from where I sit.


One post doesn't make a discourse. The rest was mere reaction, neither
a discourse.


> Time to grow-up, acknowledge your errors, graciously accept the
advice
> that has been given to you, and move on, don't you think, Mr.
> Romanov?!


Don't you think you're not in position to give such pompous "advices"?

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 7:09:05 AM2/7/05
to


I can't accept false points as cogent. About "an ass" I replied
elsewhere.


> This, Mr. Romanov, is a classic case of Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> It's also childish.
>
> Although I have tried to be polite and patient and encouraging, I
think
> the time has come to move on, or stop sniping at everyone who
disagrees
> with you.


It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing how to express one's
disagreement. Holier-than-though oh-so-righteous indignation only makes
me laugh. For example, I haven't seen this coming from you, and I'm not
sniping at you, though you obviously strongly disagree with me.

Mr. Roger and Mrs. Ostrov, on the other hand, seem to be full of it.

Sergey Romanov

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 7:29:47 AM2/7/05
to
One last comment on the "dishonest" quoting, to nobody in particular.
During my 5 years in FidoNet such way of quoting was only encouraged
and "overquoting" was strongly discuoraged and mostly
forbidden/punished. FidoNet software allows for immediate checking of
context. Perhaps in Usenet the situation is different, but I'm
surprised that the "problem" arose only now and nobody objected
earlier. If anyone was inconvenicned earlier, I learn about that only
now. I'll try to save more "context" in future.

Hilary Ostrov

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 3:59:30 PM2/7/05
to
On 7 Feb 2005 04:04:29 -0800, in
<1107777869....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "Sergey
Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

>Hilary Ostrov wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2005 13:59:14 -0800, in
>> <1107727154.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Sergey
>> Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

>> >Hilary Ostrov wrote:
>> >> On 6 Feb 2005 01:11:00 -0800, in
>> >> <1107681060.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Sergey
>> >> Romanov" <rom...@skeptik.net> wrote:

>> >> >One notes that rogie doesn't set the manners here :]

>> >> You've snipped the context,

[...]

>> >> However, regardless of whom you might have been addressing, if you
>> >> had taken the time to observe the posting patterns in this
>> >> newsgroup, you would have noticed that dishonest post-butchery - such as
>> >> you've chosen to engage in since you first arrived in alt.revisionism

>> >Concrete representative examples should follow here.

>> Really?! Oh, well, here's one:

>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/850e4d0c09d76c7d

>> and there are others in that same thread - as there are in this
>> current thread.

>Wrong. Where are representative examples of my non-quoting posts?

I was referring to your practice of "dishonest post-butchery" in
general, of which your *complete* non-quoting is but an extension. I
was also subtly providing you with an opportunity to *recognize* and
apologize for your error of a year ago. But you've obviously chosen
not to take advantage of this opportunity, or perhaps you don't
recognize subtlety when you see it.

>The
>message you posted contained both your name and the part of text I was
>responding to.

Indeed it did, and - as I had pointed out in my response to that post,
and as was quite obvious from the original text to which you were
purportedly responding - you had removed all *context* from my post.
Ergo, notwithstanding your DEM-like <even when I'm wrong, I'm right>
posture, this was indeed an example of your habit of engaging in
dishonest post-butchery.

[...]

>> >> I'm curious, Mr. Romanov ... what makes you think that your shoot
>> >> from the lip discourse is an improvement on that of Joe Bruno?

>> >Let's see the substantiation of the "shoot from the lip" phrase.

>> Perhaps you should develop the habit of reading your own posts before
>> you hit the send key.

>> But that aside, the matter which started the acrimony ball rolling,
>> i.e. your inappropriate posting of the personal details of an
>> individual (one who does not even post here) - *and* your sustained
>> defense of this insupportable action after it was pointed out how
>> wrong you were - are good examples from where I sit.

>One post doesn't make a discourse. The rest was mere reaction, neither
>a discourse.

If I were feeling more charitable towards you, I might be inclined to
give you the benefit of the doubt and simply dismiss your arrogant
antics as an unfortunate by-product from the keyboard of one who - for
whatever reason - is hampered by a somewhat selective inability to
read for comprehension.

But, at this point, I have no interest in being charitable towards
you. In fact, I have no interest in reading any more of your posts.
You've made the kill-file your bed here, Mr. Romanov, and you can
continue to lie in it.

[...]

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages