Why are there so many Anti-Semites Here?
Yale F. Edeiken
Defendant Tavish <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:822ds...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> On 23-Nov-1999, Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > What other groups have people like Scott Bradbury been infesting? How
> > long have they been posting their messages of hatred over here?
> >
> > I guess I had been hoping that other than the occasional troll, a group
> > such as this would be mostly spam free. Color me stunned.
>
> Since when is posting what Jews have at their web sites hatred?
> I call it informing the masses!
But that is not what you do, Defendant Tavish.
First your lies and distortions are as inappropriate in this group as
passing out betting pools in a church. You have invaded this group -- and
others such as soc.culture.scottish -- becasue you nonsense has been
rejected and debunked so often that your only hope is that ignorant fools
will accept it.
Second your activities are, to put it as mildly as possible abuse.
Forging posts is not "informing the public."
Death threats are not "informing the public."
Defamation is not "informing the public."
Sending harassing e-mails are not "informing the public."
Advocating that Jews be deprived of their human rights, their civil
rights, and their property rights is not "informing the public."
Spamming is not "informing the public."
Printing telephone numbers and home addresses and asking neo-nazis to
"reach out and touch someone" is not "informing the public."
Advising others to file false police reports is not "informing the
public."
AND YOU HAVE DONE ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
David E Michael
archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
>
> > Speaking of which -- I still have not heard a squeak from any court in re.
> Yale
> > Edeiken's threat of litigation against me.
Edeiken has replied:
>
> Hey you lying cocksucker, why can't you provide any evidence of such a
> threat.
>
> The soimple fact is that no such threat was ever made.
>
> You are just lying agqain.
>
> --YFE
>
Here is the proof:
<begin quote>
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: Clown Edeiken won't put his money where his mouth is
Date: 11 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <382b...@news3.enter.net>
References: <805p2t$b...@news1.newsguy.com> <3827...@news3.enter.net>
<38277A7D...@btinternet.com> <3827...@news3.enter.net>
<38284EC2...@btinternet.com> <3828...@news3.enter.net>
<38296260...@btinternet.com> <382a...@news3.enter.net>
<382AC9DF...@btinternet.com> <382b...@news3.enter.net>
<382B1771...@btinternet.com>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: mat-5-11.enter.net
X-Trace: 11 Nov 1999 16:11:27 -0500, mat-5-11.enter.net
Organization: Enter.Net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.revisionism
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:382B1771...@btinternet.com...
> Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
>
> > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:382AC9DF...@btinternet.com...
> >
> > > >
> > > > > You know full well that I was quite correct in stating that you
lied
> > in
> > > > public
> > > >
> > > > I know full well that that is a lie.
> >
> > > Then prove it in court.
> >
> > Any time you want little boy.
>
> Now.
> > I'll make you the dame deal I made to l'il tommy.
> Nah, stop farting about and just issue the writ.
We don't "issue writs" in the U.S.
The proper jurisdiction is the federal court in Allentown PA.
Do you really want to go there?
E-jmail me a demand that I sue you and the complaint will be fied there
before the end of the week.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
<end quote>
Edeiken is a dishonest man. I rest my case, m'lud.
David
Philip Mathews
Hehehe. Do you have any idea what a fool you appear?
Philip Mathews
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Buck Turgidson
> Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof for their
> archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
<snip--go back a post and read it if you wanna>
Curdles, in what way does your posting of that irrelevancy obviate the fact that
Defendant Tavish has gotten himself into legal hot water by the very actions Yale
has described?
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
David E Michael
Buck Turgidson wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
>
> > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof for their
> > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
>
> <snip--go back a post and read it if you wanna>
>
> Curdles, in what way does your posting of that irrelevancy obviate the fact that
> Defendant Tavish has gotten himself into legal hot water by the very actions Yale
> has described?
>
> -- --Dep
In about the same way that your posting of *that* irrelevancy obviates the fact that
elephants have long noses.
David
David E Michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In article <38466BA6...@btinternet.com>,
> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof for
> their
> > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
> >
> > >
Any idea what a troll you appear?
David
Buck Turgidson
> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>
> > David E Michael wrote:
> >
> > > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof for their
> > > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
> >
> > <snip--go back a post and read it if you wanna>
> >
> > Curdles, in what way does your posting of that irrelevancy obviate the fact that
> > Defendant Tavish has gotten himself into legal hot water by the very actions Yale
> > has described?
> >
> > -- --Dep
>
> In about the same way that your posting of *that* irrelevancy obviates the fact that
> elephants have long noses.
>
> David
Just trolling then, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Yale F. Edeiken
> Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof for
their
> archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
>
More spam from the man who admits he has no personal honor or integrity.
> Here is the proof:
That Lord Haw Haw is lying.
The text plainly shows that there was no threat.
Desperate for some reason to wiggle out, Lord Haw Haw can do nothing but
lie and spam.
Avital Pilpel
> > Hehehe. Do you have any idea what a fool you appear?
> >
> > Philip Mathews
>
> Any idea what a troll you appear?
Apparently, the answer is 'no', or 'yes, but I won't admit it'.
Avital Pilpel
Philip Mathews
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Philip Mathews wrote:
>
> > In article <38466BA6...@btinternet.com>,
> > > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof
for
> > their
> > > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You know full well that I was quite correct in stating
that
> > you
> > > lied
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > public
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know full well that that is a lie.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Then prove it in court.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any time you want little boy.
> > > >
> > > > Now.
> > >
> > > > > I'll make you the dame deal I made to l'il tommy.
> > >
> > > > Nah, stop farting about and just issue the writ.
> > >
> > > We don't "issue writs" in the U.S.
> > >
> > > The proper jurisdiction is the federal court in Allentown PA.
> > >
> > > Do you really want to go there?
> > >
> > > E-jmail me a demand that I sue you and the complaint will be
fied
> > there
> > > before the end of the week.
> > >
> > >
> > > The Holocaust History Project is at
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
> > > The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
> > > The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
> > > The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > Edeiken is a dishonest man. I rest my case, m'lud.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> >
> > Philip Mathews
> >
LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
Gord McFee
-0600, Buck Turgidson <deppi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
>
> > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof for their
> > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
>
> <snip--go back a post and read it if you wanna>
>
> Curdles, in what way does your posting of that irrelevancy obviate the fact that
> Defendant Tavish has gotten himself into legal hot water by the very actions Yale
> has described?
It isn't. It is just David's latest troll. I guess the honeymoon was a
bust. In fact, I wonder if the wedding ever even took place.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
David E Michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In article <3846F9EA...@btinternet.com>,
> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Philip Mathews wrote:
> >
> > > In article <38466BA6...@btinternet.com>,
> > > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof
> for
> > > their
> > > > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
entertainment.
You, I fear, do not.
David
David E Michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In >Message-id: <3848246A...@btinternet.com>
> You sir are a tedious, self important bore, who hasn't advanced an argument in
> many, many months.
And when, sir, did you last advance an argument?
>
> >
> >You, I fear, do not.
>
> No, what you fear is being exposed for what you are.
>
> I enjoy doing it!
>
I long suspected that you were the sort of person who enjoyed exposing something.
David
>
> 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 Mathews
Frequently. How about you?
>
>>
>> >
>> >You, I fear, do not.
>>
>> No, what you fear is being exposed for what you are.
>>
>> I enjoy doing it!
>>
>
>I long suspected that you were the sort of person who enjoyed exposing
>something.
Not much of a wit, are you!
David E Michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
I can imagine. 'Officer, I only had my trousers off because my bottom needed some
air.'
> How about you?
Not so often, but when they appear they are generally rather good.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You, I fear, do not.
> >>
> >> No, what you fear is being exposed for what you are.
> >>
> >> I enjoy doing it!
> >>
> >
> >I long suspected that you were the sort of person who enjoyed exposing
> >something.
>
> Not much of a wit, are you!
>
I'd rather be a wit like me than a twit like you, sir.
>
> 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
Philip Mathews
Taken to the sauce I see!
>
>> How about you?
>
>Not so often, but when they appear they are generally rather good.
Kindly label them in the future.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >You, I fear, do not.
>> >>
>> >> No, what you fear is being exposed for what you are.
>> >>
>> >> I enjoy doing it!
>> >>
>> >
>> >I long suspected that you were the sort of person who enjoyed exposing
>> >something.
>>
>> Not much of a wit, are you!
>>
>
>I'd rather be a wit like me than a twit like you, sir.
But you're not a wit, sir, just a feckless fool.
David E Michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
When it comes to witticism, sir, you just can't ketchup with me, even when you've
mustard all your resources.
>
> >
> >> How about you?
> >
> >Not so often, but when they appear they are generally rather good.
>
> Kindly label them in the future.
>
What's the point? You'd need a brain to understand them, so that disqualifies you
from the start.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You, I fear, do not.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, what you fear is being exposed for what you are.
> >> >>
> >> >> I enjoy doing it!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I long suspected that you were the sort of person who enjoyed exposing
> >> >something.
> >>
> >> Not much of a wit, are you!
> >>
> >
> >I'd rather be a wit like me than a twit like you, sir.
>
> But you're not a wit, sir, just a feckless fool.
>
And you, sir, are a fecking idiot.
>
> 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
Philip Mathews
steve wolk
>
> In <3846E109...@mindspring.com>, on Thu, 02 Dec 1999 15:14:00
> -0600, Buck Turgidson <deppi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof for their
> > > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
> >
> >
> > Curdles, in what way does your posting of that irrelevancy obviate the fact that
> > Defendant Tavish has gotten himself into legal hot water by the very actions Yale
> > has described?
>
> It isn't. It is just David's latest troll. I guess the honeymoon was a
> bust. In fact, I wonder if the wedding ever even took place.
Probably not. Judging by his actions vis-a-vis the Himmler challenge,
it would appear that Mr. Michael has a problem with commitment.
Steve
steve wolk
>
> Philip Mathews wrote:
>
> > In article <3846F9EA...@btinternet.com>,
> > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Philip Mathews wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <38466BA6...@btinternet.com>,
> > > > > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof
> > for
> > > > their
> > > > > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> You, I fear, do not.
>
> David
More lies. Sheeeesh.
Steve
Tim Stevens
[Translation: I post lavish praise on the Nazis and call it criticism and
when my own words are thrown back at me by others, I go into meltdown and
call them all liars. People are consistently entertained by my squirming
earthworm imitation].
--
Tim
********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars. There are some who are honest
but misguided individuals. However there are others who have no real interest in
the subject but just want a chance to abuse people with whom they disagree from
the safety of their computer screen. You are one of the latter.
Fortunately, it shows.
David
Andrew A. Skolnick
> Philip Matthews posted:
<snipped>
> > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
> >
> > Philip Mathews
> Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> entertainment.
>
> You, I fear, do not.
>
> David
Yeah, right. "Ingenious and sparkling wit and entertainment"
like this rabid crap from one of his vile rants:
"I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to
strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in
so doing they have my complete support."
Yeah, real ingenious and entertaining sparkling wit, Herr
Cuddles. Your hate rants reveal you to be nothing more than
a Nazi turd.
-- Andrew Skolnick
David E Michael
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
You appear to have got stuck in a groove, Andrew.
David
Tim Stevens
>
>
> Tim Stevens wrote:
[snip]
> > > > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
> > > >
> > > > Philip Mathews
> > >
> > > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> > > entertainment.
> > >
> > > You, I fear, do not.
> >
> > [Translation: I post lavish praise on the Nazis and call it criticism
and
> > when my own words are thrown back at me by others, I go into meltdown
and
> > call them all liars. People are consistently entertained by my squirming
> > earthworm imitation].
> >
> > --
> > Tim
> >
> > ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
>
> I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
On the planet earth, accusing all of your opponents who are whipping your
ass on the evidence by calling them 'dishonest' is calling them liars. Why?
What does it mean on your planet?
> There are some who are honest
> but misguided individuals.
Misguided? Surely then you would be willing to 'correct' the 'misguided'
evidence that they have presented to you with some of your own. Wonder of
wonders, you haven't.
Don't tell me - you have to have a special decoder program only available
from your bosom buddies at CODOH (the Committee for the "Open"(TM) Debate on
the Holocaust) which sifts through your usual collection of ad hominem
attacks, red baiting, straw men, anti-semititic remarks and gushing praise
of the 'beautiful dream' of the Nazis in order to reveal the heretofore
cleverly hidden evidence that the Holocaust as documented by historians is
not accurate. [And *If* you buy this now for the incredibly *low* price of
$189.99, they will throw in for free a *genuine* piece of the *true*
Führerbunker secretly spirited to the West by Martin Bormann and lovingly
preserved all these years in South America by Joseph Mengele in the abbey of
St. Adolph of the Twisted Cross in the Buenos Aires catacombs].
*That* must be why so many people have missed all this incredible and
wonderful evidence that the Holocaust never happens which justifies your
saying 'pay no attention to the corpses'.
Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also weighed
in and called you a liar as well.
> However there are others who have no real interest in
> the subject but just want a chance to abuse people with whom they disagree
from
> the safety of their computer screen. You are one of the latter.
Oh, but I assure you I have a rather intense interest in the subject, which
is further amplified by my disgust at people like you who lie and present
half-truths in order to resurrect the most evil regime this world has ever
seen and in an attempt to justify racism and ant-semitism in thought, word,
and especially deed in the way that the Nazis did.
Since you have not showed any interest in honest argument, and since you
have gratuitously initiated cowardly attacks on others on this list, you can
expect to continue to be the object of ferocious and unrelenting attack
until such time as you publically repudiate those statements that you have
made in support of the kind of murder that the Nazis practiced, and in
support of the anti-semitism that they used as justification for genocide
and mass murder.
Expect nothing but utter contempt from the people on this list until you do.
> Fortunately, it shows.
Suuuure it does. That must be why you have had just *ever* so many people
posting in support of you. Gee, all of those people who have e-mailed you
with their support must suddenly have remembered that when it came time to
show such support, they suddenly remember prior engagements. What an amazing
coincidence.
Funny how even people who have normally not posted in threads like these
have posted their low opinions of your litany of lies.
Philip Mathews
>David E Michael david.e...@btinternet.com wrote:
>Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
>
>> David Cuddles Michael scrawled in his Nazi handwriting:
>>
>> > Philip Matthews posted:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> > > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
>> > >
>> > > Philip Mathews
>>
>> > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
>> > entertainment.
>> >
>> > You, I fear, do not.
>> >
>> > David
>>
>> Yeah, right. "Ingenious and sparkling wit and entertainment"
>> like this rabid crap from one of his vile rants:
>>
>> "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
>> Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to
>> strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
>> arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
>>
>> "the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
>> appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
>> shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in
>> so doing they have my complete support."
>>
>> Yeah, real ingenious and entertaining sparkling wit, Herr
>> Cuddles. Your hate rants reveal you to be nothing more than
>> a Nazi turd.
>>
>> -- Andrew Skolnick
>
>You appear to have got stuck in a groove, Andrew.
>
And guess who's getting grooved!
Philip Mathews
>
Why should you. You're the liar.
There are some who are
>honest
>but misguided individuals. However there are others who have no real interest
>in
>the subject but just want a chance to abuse people with whom they disagree
>from
>the safety of their computer screen. You are one of the latter.
It is you who have no real interest in the subject. You're just a professional
prick who steadfastly stays away from the historical discussion of this
newsgroup, except on those rare occasions during which you've been embarrassed.
And you're the expert at abusing people from behind computer screens. We'll see
how you do in Pennsylvania.
Now how tall did you say you were?
David E Michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
Ah well . . . so much for my attempt to elicit a slight glimmer of something new
from the most tedious troll of the lot.
David
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:384939FF...@btinternet.com...
> >
> >
> > Tim Stevens wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
> > > > >
> > > > > Philip Mathews
> > > >
> > > > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> > > > entertainment.
> > > >
> > > > You, I fear, do not.
> > >
> > > [Translation: I post lavish praise on the Nazis and call it criticism
> and
> > > when my own words are thrown back at me by others, I go into meltdown
> and
> > > call them all liars. People are consistently entertained by my squirming
> > > earthworm imitation].
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
> >
> > I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
>
> On the planet earth, accusing all of your opponents who are whipping your
> ass on the evidence by calling them 'dishonest' is calling them liars. Why?
> What does it mean on your planet?
>
What are you ranting about now, Tim?
>
> > There are some who are honest
> > but misguided individuals.
>
> Misguided? Surely then you would be willing to 'correct' the 'misguided'
> evidence that they have presented to you with some of your own. Wonder of
> wonders, you haven't.
>
If you look on deja.com you'll find that I have. But you're not interested in
the truth, are ya, Tim?
>
> Don't tell me - you have to have a special decoder program only available
> from your bosom buddies at CODOH (the Committee for the "Open"(TM) Debate on
> the Holocaust) which sifts through your usual collection of ad hominem
> attacks, red baiting, straw men, anti-semititic remarks and gushing praise
> of the 'beautiful dream' of the Nazis in order to reveal the heretofore
> cleverly hidden evidence that the Holocaust as documented by historians is
> not accurate. [And *If* you buy this now for the incredibly *low* price of
> $189.99, they will throw in for free a *genuine* piece of the *true*
> Führerbunker secretly spirited to the West by Martin Bormann and lovingly
> preserved all these years in South America by Joseph Mengele in the abbey of
> St. Adolph of the Twisted Cross in the Buenos Aires catacombs].
>
Your information, as usual, is incorrect.
>
> *That* must be why so many people have missed all this incredible and
> wonderful evidence that the Holocaust never happens which justifies your
> saying 'pay no attention to the corpses'.
>
I didn't say that. But that won't stop you lying about it I suppose.
>
> Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also weighed
> in and called you a liar as well.
>
No, those were the dishonest and misguided individuals like you.
>
> > However there are others who have no real interest in
> > the subject but just want a chance to abuse people with whom they disagree
> from
> > the safety of their computer screen. You are one of the latter.
>
> Oh, but I assure you I have a rather intense interest in the subject, which
> is further amplified by my disgust at people like you who lie and present
> half-truths in order to resurrect the most evil regime this world has ever
> seen
What makes you think that it is more evil than Stalin's, for example? Or Pol
Pots?
Ah, but I forgot. You can't argue your case. You can only lie and abuse.
> and in an attempt to justify racism
I don't see anything wrong with defending one's own culture if that's what you
mean.
> and ant-semitism in thought, word,
> and especially deed in the way that the Nazis did.
>
Ant semitism? Is that the religion that looks forward to the coming of the great
Ant God?
> Since you have not showed any interest in honest argument,
False.
> and since you
> have gratuitously initiated cowardly attacks on others on this list,
You mean that I've defended myself against some of the dottiest postings on the
Internet?
> you can
> expect to continue to be the object of ferocious and unrelenting attack
You mean dishonest and abusive posts? Great! That will just show the world the
nature of at least some of those in the anti-revisionist camp.
>
> until such time as you publically repudiate those statements that you have
> made in support of the kind of murder that the Nazis practiced,
Well you're hardly going to get anyone to repudiate anything using your daft
tactics. I don't support murder. I do support fighting communism. Don't you?
> and in
> support of the anti-semitism that they used as justification for genocide
> and mass murder.
>
I have actually criticized their anti-semitism. But you carefully ignored that
part of the relevant post.
>
> Expect nothing but utter contempt from the people on this list until you do.
>
Tim, when I fail to get utter contempt from dishonest nutters like you I will
know that I am failing dismally in life.
>
> > Fortunately, it shows.
>
> Suuuure it does. That must be why you have had just *ever* so many people
> posting in support of you. Gee, all of those people who have e-mailed you
> with their support must suddenly have remembered that when it came time to
> show such support, they suddenly remember prior engagements. What an amazing
> coincidence.
>
What are you ranting on about now, Tim?
>
> Funny how even people who have normally not posted in threads like these
> have posted their low opinions of your litany of lies.
>
False. Out of a world containing millions upon millions of Internet users there
are about twelve regular people who come here to post against revisionism. Some
are honest are well informed. Others, like you, are not.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
Indeed.
David
David E Michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In >Message-id: <38497171...@btinternet.com>
>
> >David E Michael david.e...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> >Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> >
> >> David Cuddles Michael scrawled in his Nazi handwriting:
> >>
> >> > Philip Matthews posted:
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> > > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
> >> > >
> >> > > Philip Mathews
> >>
> >> > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> >> > entertainment.
> >> >
> >> > You, I fear, do not.
> >> >
> >> > David
> >>
> >> Yeah, right. "Ingenious and sparkling wit and entertainment"
> >> like this rabid crap from one of his vile rants:
> >>
> >> "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
> >> Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to
> >> strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
> >> arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
> >>
> >> "the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
> >> appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
> >> shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in
> >> so doing they have my complete support."
> >>
> >> Yeah, real ingenious and entertaining sparkling wit, Herr
> >> Cuddles. Your hate rants reveal you to be nothing more than
> >> a Nazi turd.
> >>
> >> -- Andrew Skolnick
> >
> >You appear to have got stuck in a groove, Andrew.
> >
>
> And guess who's getting grooved!
>
> Philip Mathews
I am not familiar with that expression.
David
Philip Mathews
Nothing new is needed to describe your old, and pathetic game.
How tall did you say you were?
Philip Mathews
>David E Michael david.e...@btinternet.com wrote:
>Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> In >Message-id: <38497171...@btinternet.com>
>>
>> >David E Michael david.e...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>
>> >Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
>> >
>> >> David Cuddles Michael scrawled in his Nazi handwriting:
>> >>
>> >> > Philip Matthews posted:
>> >>
>> >> <snipped>
>> >>
>> >> > > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Philip Mathews
>> >>
>> >> > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
>> >> > entertainment.
>> >> >
>> >> > You, I fear, do not.
>> >> >
>> >> > David
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, right. "Ingenious and sparkling wit and entertainment"
>> >> like this rabid crap from one of his vile rants:
>> >>
>> >> "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
>> >> Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to
>> >> strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
>> >> arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
>> >>
>> >> "the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
>> >> appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
>> >> shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in
>> >> so doing they have my complete support."
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, real ingenious and entertaining sparkling wit, Herr
>> >> Cuddles. Your hate rants reveal you to be nothing more than
>> >> a Nazi turd.
>> >>
>> >> -- Andrew Skolnick
>> >
>> >You appear to have got stuck in a groove, Andrew.
>> >
>>
>> And guess who's getting grooved!
>>
>> Philip Mathews
>
>I am not familiar with that expression.
>
Baseball.
David E Michael
Philip Mathews wrote:
Ah, that explains it.
David
John Morris
Dec 1999 14:48:23 -0600, "Tim Stevens"
<timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:384939FF...@btinternet.com...
[snip]
>> I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
>On the planet earth, accusing all of your opponents who are whipping your
>ass on the evidence by calling them 'dishonest' is calling them liars. Why?
>What does it mean on your planet?
>> There are some who are honest
>> but misguided individuals.
>Misguided? Surely then you would be willing to 'correct' the 'misguided'
>evidence that they have presented to you with some of your own. Wonder of
>wonders, you haven't.
>Don't tell me - you have to have a special decoder program only available
>from your bosom buddies at CODOH (the Committee for the "Open"(TM) Debate on
>the Holocaust) which sifts through your usual collection of ad hominem
>attacks, red baiting, straw men, anti-semititic remarks and gushing praise
>of the 'beautiful dream' of the Nazis in order to reveal the heretofore
>cleverly hidden evidence that the Holocaust as documented by historians is
>not accurate. [And *If* you buy this now for the incredibly *low* price of
>$189.99, they will throw in for free a *genuine* piece of the *true*
>Führerbunker secretly spirited to the West by Martin Bormann and lovingly
>preserved all these years in South America by Joseph Mengele in the abbey of
>St. Adolph of the Twisted Cross in the Buenos Aires catacombs].
>*That* must be why so many people have missed all this incredible and
>wonderful evidence that the Holocaust never happens which justifies your
>saying 'pay no attention to the corpses'.
>Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also weighed
>in and called you a liar as well.
David is rather fond of the locution "honest but misguided" or "good
but misguided." I recall a previous discussion where the question
came up whether David endorsed the idea that good (but misguided)
people blew up synagogues.
Certainly there is no question that he endorsed the British National
Party.
<quote>
From: "David.E.Michael" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: W O N D E R F U L N E W S
Date: 19 Jun 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <376C0C6B...@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Alex Vange wrote:
> John Morris <John....@xmunge.UAlberta.CA> wrote in article
> <376c349f...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>...
> > In <7kf3bl$4gvk$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, on Fri, 18
> > Jun 1999 23:43:28 -0400, "JimBo" <ji...@anon.fi.com> wrote:
> > >My fellow Americans:
[snip]
> > >I suggest that Ken Mc Vay and his clan have current and valid
> > >passports. The WAR is coming into the open.
>There is no way that the war against Zionist control can be won
>by firebombing sin-o-gogues. It would be a terrible thing if good
>but misguided people had to spend years in prison if they got
>caught doing such senseless things. Lets stop playing games and
>fight the enemy for real. Lets support the best group on the
>earth today. The group is not in the U.S.A., but if they win
>it would be a real victory for the right wing everywhere. The
>group is the British National Party. Look them up on the
>internet. If you don't support them yet, it's time you started.
I'd just like to second those comments. Mr Vange has hit the
nail squarely on the head. We live in a country where there
are closed-circuit cameras all over the place, DNA fingerprinting
can identify you from any bits of you that you happen to leave
at the scene of the crime, and policing has advanced to the
stage where one's chances of getting away with serious crime
(as opposed to irritating crime that's 'not worth' investigating)
are very remote unless one is a serious professional who really
knows what he's doing (in which case one wouldn't be here).
By the way, the BNP website is:
David
</quote>
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=491536373
[snip]
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
Philip Mathews
Tim Stevens
news:ng5j4s084m54hd3bj...@4ax.com...
> In <82buj7$bvb$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net> in sci.skeptic, on Sat, 4
> Dec 1999 14:48:23 -0600, "Tim Stevens"
>
> >David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
>
> >ass on the evidence by calling them 'dishonest' is calling them liars.
Why?
> >What does it mean on your planet?
>
> >> but misguided individuals.
>
But John, as one of the 'honest but misguided' anti-revisionists, your use
of Führer Cuddles own words against himself to show that he actively
supports the British version of the Nazi party called the 'British National
Party', that he routinely uses anti-semitic terminology ('sin-o-gogues' Mr.
Michael?), and that he displays his 'massive outrage' against such terrorist
acts not by denouncing the perpetrators as murderers but by complaining that
it is bad tactics and that they would likely be caught, will now surely be
denounced as 'dishonesty' or, at best, that I have somehow managed to put
you under the evil mind control of the Nizkor project and that it was not
really you, but ZOG speaking through you that resorted to such 'dishonest'
tactics.
As the duly appointed representative of the ZOG/Illuminati Ruling Cabal and
Co-conspiracy, I hereby release you from all ZOG mind-control. <ZZZZZPT!>
If Führer Cuddle's implied predictions are correct, John should now
magically be able to ignore all of those corpses which the rest of us under
Nizkor's unholy influence insist that we see, and merrily join Herr Michael
in a wunderbar reprise of the Horst Wessel song. [Hee Hee]
Buck Turgidson
>
> But, yes, his concern at the time seemed to be that bombing
> synagogues was simply a matter of bad tactics.
>
No. I don't accept terrorism against the general public.
<<<<<
Why, how else then (as you yourself have said) are the nationalists to make
their point known?
Forget it, Curdles. You supported the bombing of a gay pub in London as an act
of political speech. Please don't assume we'd forget.
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
Buck Turgidson
> >
> > >Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also weighed
> > >in and called you a liar as well.
> >
> > David is rather fond of the locution "honest but misguided" or "good
> > but misguided." I recall a previous discussion where the question
> > came up whether David endorsed the idea that good (but misguided)
> > people blew up synagogues.
> >
>
> Actually I have condemned the blowing up of synagogues. But don't let the truth
> spoil a good story.
You also supported Buford Furrow as a "good but misguided" individual. Or was that
Benjamin Smith? One loses track of the murderous bigots you support.
Yale F. Edeiken
>
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In <82c8um$bqn$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> in alt.revisionism, on
> > Sat, 4 Dec 1999 17:39:05 -0600, "Tim Stevens"
> > Here you are actually being honest but misguided. The paragraph
> > containing the reference to "sin-o-gogues" was written by Alex Vange.
> Thank you, Mr Morris.
> > David merely endorsed the paragraph and then gave us the URL of the
> > British National Party website.
> Indeed. It is an excellent organization, with a recently vastly improved
> leadership.
And, therefore, according to Lord Haw Haw, able to carry the
swastika-adorned flag of "his side."
> > But, yes, his concern at the time seemed to be that bombing
> > synagogues was simply a matter of bad tactics.
> No. I don't accept terrorism against the general public.
He just endorses it against those who disagree with him.
> > >As the duly appointed representative of the ZOG/Illuminati Ruling
> > >Cabal and Co-conspiracy, I hereby release you from all ZOG
> > >mind-control. <ZZZZZPT!>
> >
> > Such clarity! Such vision!
> Cripes! If Tim is an example of a man with vision I'd hate to meet someone
> with myopia!
You will be shortly.
> > Thank you; thank you; thank you!
> > >If Führer Cuddle's implied predictions are correct, John should now
> > >magically be able to ignore all of those corpses which the rest of
> > >us under Nizkor's unholy influence insist that we see, and merrily
> > >join Herr Michael in a wunderbar reprise of the Horst Wessel song.
> > >[Hee Hee]
> > Yes. I can see it all clearly now. But I still see hate-filled
> > creeps.
> So do I.
Then cover your mirror.
Yale F. Edeiken
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > In <82buj7$bvb$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net> in sci.skeptic, on Sat, 4
> > Dec 1999 14:48:23 -0600, "Tim Stevens"
> > <timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > >news:384939FF...@btinternet.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
> >
> > >On the planet earth, accusing all of your opponents who are whipping
your
> > >ass on the evidence by calling them 'dishonest' is calling them liars.
Why?
> > >What does it mean on your planet?
> >
> > >> There are some who are honest
> > >> but misguided individuals.
> >
> Actually I have condemned the blowing up of synagogues. But don't let the
truth
> spoil a good story.
Yes. You said that it was futile because the "good but misguided"
people who did so would be caught.
> > Certainly there is no question that he endorsed the British National
> > Party.
> Yup. You should find an inspiring article from me on economics in the
first issue
> of their new journal.
I'm sure it was written as part of a "wonderful dream."
Gord McFee
steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > In <3846E109...@mindspring.com>, on Thu, 02 Dec 1999 15:14:00
> > -0600, Buck Turgidson <deppi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > David E Michael wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof for their
> > > > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip--go back a post and read it if you wanna>
> > >
> > > Curdles, in what way does your posting of that irrelevancy obviate the fact that
> > > Defendant Tavish has gotten himself into legal hot water by the very actions Yale
> > > has described?
> >
> > It isn't. It is just David's latest troll. I guess the honeymoon was a
> > bust. In fact, I wonder if the wedding ever even took place.
>
> Probably not. Judging by his actions vis-a-vis the Himmler challenge,
> it would appear that Mr. Michael has a problem with commitment.
Probably the poor bride-to-be took a look at Dave the Wiggler and had to
be committed.
Gord McFee
+0000, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Fortunately, it shows.
Yes, Dave the Wiggler's hardcore antisemitism surely shows.
David Michael whines about Daniel Keren accusing him of posting
"hardcore antisemitic propaganda". Here is his whine.
<David Michael>
Dr Danny Keren recently accused me in this newsgroup of posting
'hardcore' antisemitic propaganda under a pseudonym. His accusation was
false. I again publicly challenge him either to post an example of
'hardcore' antisemitic propaganda posted by me, or to apologize like a
man.
</David Michael>
Why should Dr Keren apologize? He is right. Here is what David Michael
had previously said:
<David Michael>
I can see how the concerns about Jewish influence may have arisen, and
from my own fairly recent encounter with the Jewish community, I must
say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the Jews
seems to be. I think the problem, however, is cultural rather than
genetic. I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people.
</David Michael>
Here is what the Nazi stereotype was:
<begin quote>
Diese Verpestung unseres Blutes, an der Hunderttausende unseres Volkes
wie blind vorübergehen, wird aber vom Juden heute planmäßig betrieben.
Planmäßig schänden diese schwarzen Völkerparasiten unsere unerfahrenen,
jungen blonden Mädchen und zerstören dadurch etwas, was auf dieser Welt
nicht mehr ersetzt werden kann.
This contamination of our blood, which hundreds of thousands of our
people blindly ignore, is used by the Jew today according to plan.
These black parasites of the peoples deliberately violate our
inexperienced, young blond girls and thereby destroy something that
cannot be replaced in this world.
-- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Vol II, pages 629-30
<end quote>
<begin quote>
Das furchtbarste Beispiel dieser Art bildet Rußland, wo er an dreißig
Millionen Menschen in wahrhaft fanatischer Wildheit teilweise unter
unmenschlichen Qualen tötete oder verhungern ließ, um einem Haufen
jüdischer Literaten und Börsenbanditen die Herrschaft aber ein großes
Volk zu sichern.
Das Ende aber ist nicht nur das Ende der Freiheit der vom Juden
unterdrückten Völker, sondern auch das Ende dieses Völkerparasiten
selber. Nach dem Tode des Opfers stirbt auch früher oder später der
Vampir.
The most fearsome example of this kind is Russia where he (Jewry)
allowed 39 million humans in truly fanatical wildness to die or starve
in inhuman agony, in order to secure the mastery of a great people for a
gang of Jewish literati and stock exchange bandits.
The result is not only the end of freedom for the people oppressed by
the Jews, but rather also the end of these parasites of the peoples
themselves. After the death of the victim, the vampire dies sooner or
later.
-- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, vol I, page 358
<end quote>
<begin quote>
Gab es denn da einen Unrat, eine Schamlosigkeit in irgendeiner Form, vor
allem des kulturellen Lebens, an der nicht wenigstens ein Jude beteiligt
gewesen wäre? Sowie man nur vorsichtig in eine solche Geschwulst
hineinschnitt, fand man, wie die Made im faulenden Leibe, oft ganz
geblendet vom plötzlichen Lichte, ein Jüdlein.
Was there any excrement, any shamelessness in any form, above all in
cultural life, in which at least one Jew would not have been involved?
As soon as one even carefully cut into such an abscess, one found, like
maggots in a decaying body, often blinded by the sudden light, a kike.
-- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Volume I, page 61
<end quote>
<begin quote>
Der schwarzhaarige Judenjunge lauert stundenlang, satanishe Freude in
seinem Gesicht, auf das ahnungslose Mädchen, das er mit seinem Blute
schändet und damit seinem, des Mädchens, Volke raubt.
With satanic joy on his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait
for hours for the unsuspecting girl, whom he violates with his blood and
thereby steals her from her people.
-- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Volume I, page 357
<end quote>
<begin quote>
Hätte man zu Kriegsbeginn und während des Krieges einmal zwölf- oder
fünfzehntausend dieser hebräischen Volksverderber so unter Giftgas
gehalten, wie Hunderttausende unserer allerbesten deutschen Arbeiter aus
allen Schichten und Berufen es im Felde erdulden mußten, dann wäre das
Millionenopfer der Front nicht vergeblich gewesen. (Volume II, page 772)
If we had at the beginning of, and during the war, subjected 12 or
15,000 of these Hebrew corrupters of the people to poison gas, as
hundreds of thousands of our bestGerman workers from all strata and
occupations had to endure, then millions of victims of the Front would
not have been in vain.
-- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Vol II, page 772
<end quote>
That is the stereotype that David Michael described as "true-to-life".
Equating Jews to vampires, parasites, violators of young girls, maggots,
corrupters of the people and so on, and then wishing they had been
gassed, is as hardcore antisemitic as one can get. That is what David
Michael admits he agrees with. Dr Keren is perfectly right about him.
Gord McFee
01:29:20 GMT, phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
> In >Message-id: <38486A6A...@btinternet.com>
>
> >David E Michael david.e...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >Philip Mathews wrote:
> >
> >> In >Message-id: <3848246A...@btinternet.com>
> >>
> >> >David E Michael david.e...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Philip Mathews wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <3846F9EA...@btinternet.com>,
> >> >> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Philip Mathews wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > In article <38466BA6...@btinternet.com>,
> >> >> > > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > Mr Edeiken is full of accusations. However, if anyone wants proof
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > their
> >> >> > > > archives that Yale F. Edeiken is a liar, here it is. I wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > --YFE
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > The Holocaust History Project is at
> >> >> http://www.holocaust-history.org/
> >> >> > > > The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
> >> >> > > > The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
> >> >> > > > The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > <end quote>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Edeiken is a dishonest man. I rest my case, m'lud.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > David
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Hehehe. Do you have any idea what a fool you appear?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Philip Mathews
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> >> > > Before you buy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Any idea what a troll you appear?
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
> >> >>
> >> >> Philip Mathews
> >> >
> >> >Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> >> >entertainment.
> >>
> >> You sir are a tedious, self important bore, who hasn't advanced an argument
> >in
> >> many, many months.
> >
> >And when, sir, did you last advance an argument?
>
> Frequently. How about you?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You, I fear, do not.
> >>
> >> No, what you fear is being exposed for what you are.
> >>
> >> I enjoy doing it!
> >>
> >
> >I long suspected that you were the sort of person who enjoyed exposing
> >something.
>
> Not much of a wit, are you!
Not at all, but his usual tactic when his troll fails and he is losing.
"Tedious, self-important bore" is indeed an excellent description of
Wiggler Dave.
Tim Stevens
talking
> about, Tim.
Oh, so you mean your phrase 'I'd just like to second those comments' means
that you do not agree with what Vangel said? That's a pretty imaginative use
of words to rebut what the Vangebot had to say. Gosh, how ever could we have
gotten the idea from this statement that you support the British National
Party when it was so obviously a powerful denial of Vange's support for
them?
> > that he routinely uses anti-semitic terminology ('sin-o-gogues' Mr.
> > Michael?)
>
> Where, liar?
"I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the
Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they
are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
One more time, Mr. Michael - do you repudiate this statement of yours or
not? You have been reminded of it constantly by many people and given a
chance to shun such hatred. Funny how you have avoided doing that so that it
might actually be possible to have a semi-rational discussion with you.
Danny Keren had you dead to rights, I fear:
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=551463978
"> ## Your words, antisemite. Why are you trying to deny them? Because you
> ## posted them under an alias?
>
> # I don't deny them. I am merely pointing out that you are being dishonest
> # about them.
>
> The Nazi stereotype of the Jews was as of lice that has to be
exterminated.
>
> You wrote "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi
> stereotype of the Jews seems to be".
>
> That is, you wholeheartedly identify with the same conception of the Jews,
> which was adopted by the Nazis - the same conception which eventually led
> to the mass murder of Jews.
>
> That makes you a far worse antisemite than the usual "revisionist"
> brand, such as Giwer, Bellinger, etc. - all pretty rabid antisemites
> themselves. None of them, however, embraced the Nazi conception of the
> Jews. Maybe "Tripp Henderssen" is as bad as you; maybe.
>
> I wonder - when you die, will there be one good word to say about you?
> Frankly, I don't think so."
Do you agree or disagree with Vangel's use of the term 'sin-o-gogue' within
a paragraph which you were oh so eager to 'second'? Why do you keep on
insisting that we make a fool of you?
> > , and that he displays his 'massive outrage' against such terrorist
> > acts not by denouncing the perpetrators as murderers but by complaining
that
> > it is bad tactics and that they would likely be caught, will now surely
be
> > denounced as 'dishonesty' or, at best,
>
> Yup.
>
> > that I have somehow managed to put
> > you under the evil mind control of the Nizkor project and that it was
not
> > really you, but ZOG speaking through you that resorted to such
'dishonest'
> > tactics.
> >
>
> No, Tim. It was just you being dishonest as always.
Oh, then you wish to change your mind and denounce people who firebomb
synogogues as murderers? You apparently missed mentioning the fact that they
were hateful racist murderers as opposed to merely being poor tacticians.
All you need do is merely state that you turn your back utterly on this
violence and the kind of violence you supported in this statement:
"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with communists.
They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in so doing
they have my complete support."
Until you do so, it would seem that my and other people's assessment of you
is right on the mark and rather brutally honest.
> >
> > As the duly appointed representative of the ZOG/Illuminati Ruling Cabal
and
> > Co-conspiracy, I hereby release you from all ZOG mind-control.
<ZZZZZPT!>
> >
> > If Führer Cuddle's implied predictions are correct, John should now
> > magically be able to ignore all of those corpses which the rest of us
under
> > Nizkor's unholy influence insist that we see, and merrily join Herr
Michael
> > in a wunderbar reprise of the Horst Wessel song. [Hee Hee]
> >
>
> Ah well, at least an attempt at humour is a change from the usual rabid
hatred.
Hatred? No. White-hot anger at your deceit? Definitely. The difference
between the two is that the latter can disappear with your public
repudiation of such hateful statements as several of us have reminded you of
time and again. You alone hold the key to changing all that.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <82c8um$bqn$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> in alt.revisionism, on
Sat, 4 Dec 1999 17:39:05 -0600, "Tim Stevens"
<timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Here you are actually being honest but misguided. The paragraph
containing the reference to "sin-o-gogues" was written by Alex Vange.
David merely endorsed the paragraph and then gave us the URL of the
British National Party website.
But, yes, his concern at the time seemed to be that bombing
synagogues was simply a matter of bad tactics.
>As the duly appointed representative of the ZOG/Illuminati Ruling
>Cabal and Co-conspiracy, I hereby release you from all ZOG
>mind-control. <ZZZZZPT!>
Such clarity! Such vision!
Thank you; thank you; thank you!
>If Führer Cuddle's implied predictions are correct, John should now
>magically be able to ignore all of those corpses which the rest of
>us under Nizkor's unholy influence insist that we see, and merrily
>join Herr Michael in a wunderbar reprise of the Horst Wessel song.
>[Hee Hee]
Yes. I can see it all clearly now. But I still see hate-filled
creeps.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOEmxypQgvG272fn9EQLnDgCg7C1tWBNxhsylGMOnXpjr60WX6LAAn1rz
te9lCXkd5PD4k0uOFKfaK9nW
=riCY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David E Michael
John Morris wrote:
> In <82buj7$bvb$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net> in sci.skeptic, on Sat, 4
> Dec 1999 14:48:23 -0600, "Tim Stevens"
> <timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:384939FF...@btinternet.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
>
> >On the planet earth, accusing all of your opponents who are whipping your
> >ass on the evidence by calling them 'dishonest' is calling them liars. Why?
> >What does it mean on your planet?
>
> >> There are some who are honest
> >> but misguided individuals.
>
> >Misguided? Surely then you would be willing to 'correct' the 'misguided'
> >evidence that they have presented to you with some of your own. Wonder of
> >wonders, you haven't.
>
> >Don't tell me - you have to have a special decoder program only available
> >from your bosom buddies at CODOH (the Committee for the "Open"(TM) Debate on
> >the Holocaust) which sifts through your usual collection of ad hominem
> >attacks, red baiting, straw men, anti-semititic remarks and gushing praise
> >of the 'beautiful dream' of the Nazis in order to reveal the heretofore
> >cleverly hidden evidence that the Holocaust as documented by historians is
> >not accurate. [And *If* you buy this now for the incredibly *low* price of
> >$189.99, they will throw in for free a *genuine* piece of the *true*
> >Führerbunker secretly spirited to the West by Martin Bormann and lovingly
> >preserved all these years in South America by Joseph Mengele in the abbey of
> >St. Adolph of the Twisted Cross in the Buenos Aires catacombs].
>
> >*That* must be why so many people have missed all this incredible and
> >wonderful evidence that the Holocaust never happens which justifies your
> >saying 'pay no attention to the corpses'.
>
> >Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also weighed
> >in and called you a liar as well.
>
> David is rather fond of the locution "honest but misguided" or "good
> but misguided." I recall a previous discussion where the question
> came up whether David endorsed the idea that good (but misguided)
> people blew up synagogues.
>
Actually I have condemned the blowing up of synagogues. But don't let the truth
spoil a good story.
>
> Certainly there is no question that he endorsed the British National
> Party.
>
Yup. You should find an inspiring article from me on economics in the first issue
of their new journal.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
That is actually laughable. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking
about, Tim.
> that he routinely uses anti-semitic terminology ('sin-o-gogues' Mr.
> Michael?)
Where, liar?
> , and that he displays his 'massive outrage' against such terrorist
> acts not by denouncing the perpetrators as murderers but by complaining that
> it is bad tactics and that they would likely be caught, will now surely be
> denounced as 'dishonesty' or, at best,
Yup.
> that I have somehow managed to put
> you under the evil mind control of the Nizkor project and that it was not
> really you, but ZOG speaking through you that resorted to such 'dishonest'
> tactics.
>
No, Tim. It was just you being dishonest as always.
>
> As the duly appointed representative of the ZOG/Illuminati Ruling Cabal and
> Co-conspiracy, I hereby release you from all ZOG mind-control. <ZZZZZPT!>
>
> If Führer Cuddle's implied predictions are correct, John should now
> magically be able to ignore all of those corpses which the rest of us under
> Nizkor's unholy influence insist that we see, and merrily join Herr Michael
> in a wunderbar reprise of the Horst Wessel song. [Hee Hee]
>
Ah well, at least an attempt at humour is a change from the usual rabid hatred.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
David
David E Michael
John Morris wrote:
Thank you, Mr Morris.
>
> David merely endorsed the paragraph and then gave us the URL of the
> British National Party website.
>
Indeed. It is an excellent organization, with a recently vastly improved
leadership.
>
> But, yes, his concern at the time seemed to be that bombing
> synagogues was simply a matter of bad tactics.
>
No. I don't accept terrorism against the general public.
>
> >As the duly appointed representative of the ZOG/Illuminati Ruling
> >Cabal and Co-conspiracy, I hereby release you from all ZOG
> >mind-control. <ZZZZZPT!>
>
> Such clarity! Such vision!
>
Cripes! If Tim is an example of a man with vision I'd hate to meet someone
with myopia!
>
> Thank you; thank you; thank you!
>
> >If Führer Cuddle's implied predictions are correct, John should now
> >magically be able to ignore all of those corpses which the rest of
> >us under Nizkor's unholy influence insist that we see, and merrily
> >join Herr Michael in a wunderbar reprise of the Horst Wessel song.
> >[Hee Hee]
>
> Yes. I can see it all clearly now. But I still see hate-filled
> creeps.
>
So do I.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOEmxypQgvG272fn9EQLnDgCg7C1tWBNxhsylGMOnXpjr60WX6LAAn1rz
> te9lCXkd5PD4k0uOFKfaK9nW
> =riCY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
David E Michael
Buck Turgidson wrote:
> >>>>>
>
> >
> > But, yes, his concern at the time seemed to be that bombing
> > synagogues was simply a matter of bad tactics.
> >
>
> No. I don't accept terrorism against the general public.
> <<<<<
>
> Why, how else then (as you yourself have said) are the nationalists to make
> their point known?
>
> Forget it, Curdles. You supported the bombing of a gay pub in London as an act
> of political speech.
False. I condemned it.
> Please don't assume we'd forget.
>
> -- --Dep
>
> "Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
> easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
> --David Mamet --Peter Schickele
>
You should try practising what you preach.
>
> Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
> http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
David
David E Michael
Buck Turgidson wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
>
> > >
> > > >Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also weighed
> > > >in and called you a liar as well.
> > >
> > > David is rather fond of the locution "honest but misguided" or "good
> > > but misguided." I recall a previous discussion where the question
> > > came up whether David endorsed the idea that good (but misguided)
> > > people blew up synagogues.
> > >
> >
> > Actually I have condemned the blowing up of synagogues. But don't let the truth
> > spoil a good story.
>
> You also supported Buford Furrow as a "good but misguided" individual. Or was that
> Benjamin Smith? One loses track of the murderous bigots you support.
>
> -- --Dep
I don't know who those two gentlemen are so I could hardly have supported them. And
you, if I recall correctly, supported the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of
civilians in Japan.
David
David E Michael
Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:3849BBBC...@btinternet.com...
> > > >Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also
> weighed
> > > >in and called you a liar as well.
> > >
> > > David is rather fond of the locution "honest but misguided" or "good
> > > but misguided." I recall a previous discussion where the question
> > > came up whether David endorsed the idea that good (but misguided)
> > > people blew up synagogues.
>
> > Actually I have condemned the blowing up of synagogues. But don't let the
> truth
> > spoil a good story.
>
> Yes. You said that it was futile because the "good but misguided"
> people who did so would be caught.
>
> > > Certainly there is no question that he endorsed the British National
> > > Party.
>
> > Yup. You should find an inspiring article from me on economics in the
> first issue
> > of their new journal.
>
> I'm sure it was written as part of a "wonderful dream."
>
> --YFE
No, that was Gordon Brown's last budget speech.
David
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
>
> > David Cuddles Michael scrawled in his Nazi handwriting:
> >
> > > Philip Matthews posted:
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Philip Mathews
> >
> > > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> > > entertainment.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, right. "Ingenious and sparkling wit and entertainment"
> > like this rabid crap from one of his vile rants:
> >
> > Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to
> > strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
> > arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
> >
> > appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
> > shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in
> > so doing they have my complete support."
> >
> > Cuddles. Your hate rants reveal you to be nothing more than
> > a Nazi turd.
> >
> > -- Andrew Skolnick
>
> You appear to have got stuck in a groove, Andrew.
>
What's the matter Cuddles? You don't like to read your own
words? I don't blame you. Now you know how decent people
feel after reading your "ingenious and entertaining
sparkling wit." They feel like they need a bath. You are a
vile, slimy pathogen, Herr Cuddles. People who come in
contact with you feel dirty and defiled. I suppose that
gives you some kind of thrill, Lord Haw-Haw.
Tell me, Cuddles, do your neighbors know about you? Do they
point fingers at you when you go by saying, "Look, there's
that Nazi. He's that traitor who cries because Hitler lost
the war. I hope he steps on an unexploded Nazi bomb!"
-- Andrew Skolnick
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
Nope. It means I agree with what he said about the BNP.
> That's a pretty imaginative use
> of words to rebut what the Vangebot had to say.
I wasn't rebutting what Mr Vange had to say. I was agreeing with his views on
the BNP.
> Gosh, how ever could we have
> gotten the idea from this statement that you support the British National
> Party when it was so obviously a powerful denial of Vange's support for
> them?
>
Nope. It was obviously a statement of support for them.
>
> > > that he routinely uses anti-semitic terminology ('sin-o-gogues' Mr.
> > > Michael?)
> >
> > Where, liar?
>
> "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the
> Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they
> are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
>
I don't see the phrase 'sin-o-gogues' there, liar. Where did I use the term
'sin-o-gogues'? Come on -- we're all waiting for you to tell us.
>
> One more time, Mr. Michael - do you repudiate this statement of yours or
> not?
Which statement? I never used the phrase 'sin-o-gogues'. That's an outright lie
from you. Do you repudiate that lie or not?
> You have been reminded of it constantly by many people and given a
> chance to shun such hatred.
I don't particularly hate anyone. There are some people who are tiresome,
however.
> Funny how you have avoided doing that so that it
> might actually be possible to have a semi-rational discussion with you.
>
From your performance here, Tim, it is manifestly obvious that you're not
interested in having a semi-rational discussion at all. You're just into
smearing, lying and abusing. Which is rather good because I'm into exposing
smearers, liars and abusers like you.
>
> Danny Keren had you dead to rights, I fear:
>
> http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=551463978
>
> "> ## Your words, antisemite. Why are you trying to deny them? Because you
> > ## posted them under an alias?
> >
> > # I don't deny them. I am merely pointing out that you are being dishonest
> > # about them.
> >
> > The Nazi stereotype of the Jews was as of lice that has to be
> exterminated.
> >
> > You wrote "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi
> > stereotype of the Jews seems to be".
> >
> > That is, you wholeheartedly identify with the same conception of the Jews,
> > which was adopted by the Nazis - the same conception which eventually led
> > to the mass murder of Jews.
> >
> > That makes you a far worse antisemite than the usual "revisionist"
> > brand, such as Giwer, Bellinger, etc. - all pretty rabid antisemites
> > themselves. None of them, however, embraced the Nazi conception of the
> > Jews. Maybe "Tripp Henderssen" is as bad as you; maybe.
> >
> > I wonder - when you die, will there be one good word to say about you?
> > Frankly, I don't think so."
>
> Do you agree or disagree with Vangel's use of the term 'sin-o-gogue' within
> a paragraph which you were oh so eager to 'second'?
Hang on a moment. You said that I had used the term. Are you now admitting that
you lied?
> Why do you keep on
> insisting that we make a fool of you?
>
I'm just replying to your posts so that you keep them coming to show the world
the sort of people the revisionists have to contend with every day of every
year.
>
> > > , and that he displays his 'massive outrage' against such terrorist
> > > acts not by denouncing the perpetrators as murderers but by complaining
> that
> > > it is bad tactics and that they would likely be caught, will now surely
> be
> > > denounced as 'dishonesty' or, at best,
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > > that I have somehow managed to put
> > > you under the evil mind control of the Nizkor project and that it was
> not
> > > really you, but ZOG speaking through you that resorted to such
> 'dishonest'
> > > tactics.
> > >
> >
> > No, Tim. It was just you being dishonest as always.
>
> Oh, then you wish to change your mind and denounce people who firebomb
> synogogues as murderers?
I wish to retain the position that I have always held and denounce people who
firebomb anyone as murderers (or at least arsonists, depending on the
circumstances). That includes, sir, those who firebomb revisionist publishers.
Do you denounce them?
> You apparently missed mentioning the fact that they
> were hateful racist murderers as opposed to merely being poor tacticians.
> All you need do is merely state that you turn your back utterly on this
> violence and the kind of violence you supported in this statement:
>
> "the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with communists.
> They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in so doing
> they have my complete support."
>
Point dealt with many times before. In the 1930s, the communists were engaged in
a bloody war against the non-communist world. In Russia, millions were dying.
The evil of communism was poised to spread across the earth. In a war, you kill
the enemy before it kills you.
>
> Until you do so, it would seem that my and other people's assessment of you
> is right on the mark and rather brutally honest.
>
There is nothing honest about you, Tim.
>
> > >
> > > As the duly appointed representative of the ZOG/Illuminati Ruling Cabal
> and
> > > Co-conspiracy, I hereby release you from all ZOG mind-control.
> <ZZZZZPT!>
> > >
> > > If Führer Cuddle's implied predictions are correct, John should now
> > > magically be able to ignore all of those corpses which the rest of us
> under
> > > Nizkor's unholy influence insist that we see, and merrily join Herr
> Michael
> > > in a wunderbar reprise of the Horst Wessel song. [Hee Hee]
> > >
> >
> > Ah well, at least an attempt at humour is a change from the usual rabid
> hatred.
>
> Hatred? No. White-hot anger at your deceit? Definitely.
There is no deceit, so I suspect it's a case of letting off steam at me rather
than getting into trouble for beating your
wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/hamster/rubber doll/whatever.
> The difference
> between the two is that the latter can disappear with your public
> repudiation of such hateful statements as several of us have reminded you of
> time and again. You alone hold the key to changing all that.
>
The statements in question were either not made by me ('sin-o-gogues'), or
ripped out of context and thereby grossly distorted. But you can keep on
hammering the same point and I'll keep on hammering the same reply.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
David
David E Michael
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> David Cuddles Michael wrote:
> >
> > Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> >
> > > David Cuddles Michael scrawled in his Nazi handwriting:
> > >
> > > > Philip Matthews posted:
> > >
> > > <snipped>
> > >
> > > > > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
> > > > >
> > > > > Philip Mathews
> > >
> > > > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> > > > entertainment.
> > > >
> > > > You, I fear, do not.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > > Yeah, right. "Ingenious and sparkling wit and entertainment"
> > > like this rabid crap from one of his vile rants:
> > >
> > > "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
> > > Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to
> > > strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
> > > arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
> > >
> > > "the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
> > > appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
> > > shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in
> > > so doing they have my complete support."
> > >
> > > Yeah, real ingenious and entertaining sparkling wit, Herr
> > > Cuddles. Your hate rants reveal you to be nothing more than
> > > a Nazi turd.
> > >
> > > -- Andrew Skolnick
> >
> > You appear to have got stuck in a groove, Andrew.
> >
> > David
>
> What's the matter Cuddles? You don't like to read your own
> words? I don't blame you. Now you know how decent people
> feel after reading your "ingenious and entertaining
> sparkling wit." They feel like they need a bath.
No, Andrew. It is only you who feels like you need a bath. And I suspect
that's probably because you haven't had one for the last six years.
> You are a
> vile, slimy pathogen, Herr Cuddles.
Such sophisticated argument! Such wonderful logic! Such masterful self
control!
> People who come in
> contact with you feel dirty and defiled.
Try having a bath for once in your life and then maybe you'll feel
cleaner.
> I suppose that
> gives you some kind of thrill, Lord Haw-Haw.
>
No. Cuddling hamsters does that.
>
> Tell me, Cuddles, do your neighbors know about you? Do they
> point fingers at you when you go by saying, "Look, there's
> that Nazi. He's that traitor who cries because Hitler lost
> the war. I hope he steps on an unexploded Nazi bomb!"
>
Nope. They look after parcels for me when I'm out.
>
> -- Andrew Skolnick
David
Tim Stevens
>
>
> Tim Stevens wrote:
>
> > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:3849BE77...@btinternet.com...
> > >
> > >
[snip]
Are you planning on joining the internet gymnastics squad in the near
future? My, you are performing some mighty fancy pirouettes and backflips in
a vain attempt to avoid dealing with your own words.
Your latest bellyflop, however, rates about a 1.5 from the judges, and that
doesn't even count your mom, disguised as the East German judge. Let's do an
instant replay of that shall we?
Michael maneuver #1 in response to observation that he supports the BNP:
"That is actually laughable. You really haven't got a clue what you're
talking about, Tim."
Michael maneuver #2 as a follow-up:
"Nope. It means I agree with what he said about the BNP."
This 1-2 combination was first identified some months back as what is now
known in internet gymnastics circles as 'The Giwer Grounding', not to be
confused with 'The Fosbury Flop' in that manuever #2 is used to argue
against maneuver #1. Internet gymnastics historians, however, have yet to
document a case of this manuever successfully being completed without the
internet gymnast attempting it falling hard on his face.
And now, back to live action:
> > That's a pretty imaginative use
> > of words to rebut what the Vangebot had to say.
>
> I wasn't rebutting what Mr Vange had to say. I was agreeing with his views
on
> the BNP.
For our audience at home, here are the views (once again) that Alex Vangel
spewed forth which Führer Cuddles agreed with:
Vangel:
"There is no way that the war against Zionist control can be won
by firebombing sin-o-gogues. It would be a terrible thing if good
but misguided people had to spend years in prison if they got
caught doing such senseless things. Lets stop playing games and
fight the enemy for real. Lets support the best group on the
earth today. The group is not in the U.S.A., but if they win
it would be a real victory for the right wing everywhere. The
group is the British National Party. Look them up on the
internet. If you don't support them yet, it's time you started"
Michael:
"I'd just like to second those comments. Mr Vange has hit the
nail squarely on the head. We live in a country where there
are closed-circuit cameras all over the place, DNA fingerprinting
can identify you from any bits of you that you happen to leave
at the scene of the crime, and policing has advanced to the
stage where one's chances of getting away with serious crime
(as opposed to irritating crime that's 'not worth' investigating)
are very remote unless one is a serious professional who really
knows what he's doing (in which case one wouldn't be here)."
His so-called agreement with Vangel's views on the BNP happen to be in the
fact that such tactics such as firebombing 'sin-o-gogues "are not likely to
work 'where one's chances of getting away with serious crime (as opposed to
irritating crime that's 'not worth' investigating) are very remote unless
one is a serious professional who really knows what he's doing (in which
case one wouldn't be here)." The subject matter of the agreement and the
context rather speak volumes. Let me guess, Mr. Michael - posting your own
words is dishonest? Repeat that mantra a few more times, and you just
possibly might be able to form your own religious cult complete with
ceremonies, saffron robes, and incense.
> > Gosh, how ever could we have
> > gotten the idea from this statement that you support the British
National
> > Party when it was so obviously a powerful denial of Vange's support for
> > them?
> >
>
> Nope. It was obviously a statement of support for them.
So much for Cuddles' ability to detect irony.....
> >
> > > > that he routinely uses anti-semitic terminology ('sin-o-gogues' Mr.
> > > > Michael?)
> > >
> > > Where, liar?
> >
> > "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of
the
> > Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet --
they
> > are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
> >
>
> I don't see the phrase 'sin-o-gogues' there, liar. Where did I use the
term
> 'sin-o-gogues'? Come on -- we're all waiting for you to tell us.
You didn't, as the context shows. You agreed with Mr. Vangel's statement
which included that anti-semitic remark. Elsewhere you have shown contempt
for Jews as in the oft-quoted statement of yours above, which you have gone
to Olympian extremes to avoid. As I have given you a chance before to do, do
you repudiate such comments that you have made and which Mr. Vangel has made
which you have 'seconded'? Yes or no?
> >
> > One more time, Mr. Michael - do you repudiate this statement of yours or
> > not?
>
> Which statement? I never used the phrase 'sin-o-gogues'. That's an
outright lie
> from you. Do you repudiate that lie or not?
You did not use that phrase. Mr. Vangel did. You agreed with it? Or do you
repudiate your agreement with it? Yes or No?
> > You have been reminded of it constantly by many people and given a
> > chance to shun such hatred.
>
> I don't particularly hate anyone. There are some people who are tiresome,
> however.
Oh, I see. So the a comment such as "I must say that I am struck by how
true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the
Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they
are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people" is meant to say that they are
'tiresome', Führer Cuddles? Gosh, apparently that one evaded the
consciousness of everyone reading these posts except for your mythic base of
fans e-mailing you with their support who seem to have not materialized in
Usenet to support you. Rather amusing how so many people have seemed to have
misinterpreted such statements. Or do you wish to publically renounce such
statements? Yes or No?
> > Funny how you have avoided doing that so that it
> > might actually be possible to have a semi-rational discussion with you.
> >
>
> From your performance here, Tim, it is manifestly obvious that you're not
> interested in having a semi-rational discussion at all. You're just into
> smearing, lying and abusing. Which is rather good because I'm into
exposing
> smearers, liars and abusers like you.
Oh, that's right. Anyone who disagrees with you, uses your own words to
display that you are a Nazi, uses evidence to debunk your crackpot theory
that Naziism 'was a beautiful dream' and that we should just 'ignore the
corpses' caused by the most murderous regime in history, is either a
'smearer', 'liar'. or 'abuser'. LOL!
That would all non-Nazis, which would be about 99% of the population of the
earth who views Nazis with utter disgust.
Well, Cuddles, you just keep right on 'exposing' me. I don't mind. If you
are too stupid to figure out that it is not even anything that I have said
but your own words which have made you look foolish, I'm more than game to
continue this 'conversation' indefinitely.
Here is what was said:
"But John, as one of the 'honest but misguided' anti-revisionists, your use
of Führer Cuddles own words against himself to show that he actively
supports the British version of the Nazi party called the 'British National
Party', that he routinely uses anti-semitic terminology ('sin-o-gogues' Mr.
Michael?), and that he displays his 'massive outrage' against such terrorist
acts not by denouncing the perpetrators as murderers but by complaining that
it is bad tactics and that they would likely be caught, will now surely be
denounced as 'dishonesty' or, at best, that I have somehow managed to put
you under the evil mind control of the Nizkor project and that it was not
really you, but ZOG speaking through you that resorted to such 'dishonest'
tactics."
The context clearly shows that it was Vangel proferring forth that
'characterization' of Jews in a way similar to your own anti-semitic
terminology, which has been mentioned rather exhaustively and you agreeing
to it. Once again, do you publically disagree with that characterization of
Jews whereas before you agreed to the paragraph in which that was a
characterization? Yes or No? You have been asked this question now several
times, even before John Morris reminded you of your support for such
characterizations in your own words.
> > Why do you keep on
> > insisting that we make a fool of you?
> >
>
> I'm just replying to your posts so that you keep them coming to show the
world
> the sort of people the revisionists have to contend with every day of
every
> year.
*You* a revisionist? ROTFL! Legitimate Historical Revisionists do not run
away from evidence or refuse to deal with it by throwing out every dishonest
trick in the book. Your dishonesty has been rather well-displayed and
publically documented in your use of gratuitous ad hominems, red herrings,
straw men, and tu quoques.
But do please continue to reply to my posts; no doubt by now the letters of
support for you in your 'holy' struggle against thoses nasty
anti-revisionists with their dishonest techniques of posting evidence and
throwing your words back at you must surely be flooding your e-mailbox by
now, just as they have been positively overwhelming in their support of you
on this NG.
[snip]
> >
> > Oh, then you wish to change your mind and denounce people who firebomb
> > synogogues as murderers?
>
> I wish to retain the position that I have always held and denounce people
who
> firebomb anyone as murderers (or at least arsonists, depending on the
> circumstances). That includes, sir, those who firebomb revisionist
publishers.
> Do you denounce them?
That is a good first step forward. I also utterly denounce such violence and
murderous intent directed at 'revisionist' publishers such as Zundel. Let's
see if we can now move forward another step. I and others have asked you
these questions before:
Do you shun the anti-semitic hatred which is behind these attacks, such as
the kind of anti-semitic statement you made which has been cited several
times previously? Yes or no?
Do you renounce the use of violence against political opponents which you
have previously supported who have done nothing wrong or illegal, such as
the communists in Germany who were killed by Hitler? Yes or no?
Do you renounce the use of violence and murder to enforce 'discipline' which
you previously suggested you supported in settling intra-party disputes? Yes
or No?
Publically renounce these things which Nazis and racists in your country and
mine have publically endorsed, and perhaps the opinion of everyone who has
responded to your posts and which find these things utterly and totally
hateful and despicable will begin to change. It's totally up to you.
> > You apparently missed mentioning the fact that they
> > were hateful racist murderers as opposed to merely being poor
tacticians.
> > All you need do is merely state that you turn your back utterly on this
> > violence and the kind of violence you supported in this statement:
>
> >
> > "the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
communists.
> > They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in so
doing
> > they have my complete support."
> >
>
> Point dealt with many times before. In the 1930s, the communists were
engaged in
> a bloody war against the non-communist world. In Russia, millions were
dying.
> The evil of communism was poised to spread across the earth. In a war, you
kill
> the enemy before it kills you.
And once again, you are challenged to show evidence of this bloody war.
Historians everywhere apparently must have missed this massive bloody and
violent assault on the non-communist world. Hell, you cannot even show
evidence that the KPD endorsed violence and murder in Germany in the 1930's,
quite unlike the Nazis. Why? Because they didn't. Your justification for
murder of these people who had committed no crimes? "In a war, you kill the
enemy before it kills you." Funny how that same logic came to be applied to
women and children who were 'non-Aryan'. Such logic is utterly chilling and
evil.
Still one more time. Do you publically repudiate the murder of political
enemies, even though they have not done anything wrong or illegal? Do you
repudiate such evil? Yes or no? You can avoid the question all you want, but
the question will not go away?
> >
> > Until you do so, it would seem that my and other people's assessment of
you
> > is right on the mark and rather brutally honest.
> >
>
> There is nothing honest about you, Tim.
(Yawn). If you say so. How terribly dishonest it has been of me to present
your own word back to you, ask you if you repudiate political opinions which
have been linked to mass murder in the past and in the present (ie - The
Oklahoma City bombing) and Hate crimes, and present empirical evidence that
the holocaust happened the way and to the extent that *all* legitimate
academic historians have documented.
Well, you go on calling me dishonest all you like, Führer Cuddles, and the
rest of us reading this will go on forming our opinions to the contrary
based upon your own words and upon the evidence. I'm game.
[snip]
> > > Ah well, at least an attempt at humour is a change from the usual
rabid
> > hatred.
> >
> > Hatred? No. White-hot anger at your deceit? Definitely.
>
> There is no deceit, so I suspect it's a case of letting off steam at me
rather
> than getting into trouble for beating your
> wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/hamster/rubber doll/whatever.
Wrong again, Führer Cuddles. I have been happily married to the same woman
now for 7 1/2 years without incident and we have two wonderful and
precocious children. Your pathetically obvious and crude 'do you still beat
your wife' gambit does far more to damage you than it does me or anyone who
knows me.
But do go ahead and continue your slander. After all, according to you, Yale
has not 'issued a summons' and since that is the case, you therefore have
nothing to worry about from me if I say were to appear as a witness for the
plaintiff.
Are you sure about that, Mr. Michael? Think reeeeally hard about the
implications of your behavior and your demand that he sue you.
> > The difference between the two is that the latter can disappear with
your public
> > repudiation of such hateful statements as several of us have reminded
you of
> > time and again. You alone hold the key to changing all that.
> >
>
> The statements in question were either not made by me ('sin-o-gogues'), or
> ripped out of context and thereby grossly distorted. But you can keep on
> hammering the same point and I'll keep on hammering the same reply.
They were *not* uttered by you. They were *not* however, ripped out of
context. John Morris posted the entire letter wherein these comments
appeared. You have been asked the meaning of your 'seconding' of Vangel's
statements and asked if that also included repudiation of the anti-semitic
remark by Vangel and the repudiation of such violence as firebombing
'sin-o-gogues'. You repudiated the latter which was a good first step in the
right direction.
You have not, however, repudiated the anti-semitic remark by Vangel whose
statement you 'seconded' just as you have not renounced the anti-semitism
which drove the murder of millions by the Nazis, which you have previously
characterized as 'true-to-life'.
And you wonder why so many people on this list and on a.r. find your posts
so utterly abhorrent. Amazing.
Gord McFee
-0600, "Tim Stevens" <timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:384939FF...@btinternet.com...
> >
> >
> > Tim Stevens wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
> > > > >
> > > > > Philip Mathews
> > > >
> > > > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> > > > entertainment.
> > > >
> > > > You, I fear, do not.
> > >
> > > [Translation: I post lavish praise on the Nazis and call it criticism
> and
> > > when my own words are thrown back at me by others, I go into meltdown
> and
> > > call them all liars. People are consistently entertained by my squirming
> > > earthworm imitation].
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
> >
> > I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
>
> On the planet earth, accusing all of your opponents who are whipping your
> ass on the evidence by calling them 'dishonest' is calling them liars. Why?
> What does it mean on your planet?
>
> > There are some who are honest
> > but misguided individuals.
Yes, for David Wiggler, the "honest but misguided" individuals are those
who do not see through his trolls and baiting right away.
[deleted]
> > However there are others who have no real interest in
> > the subject but just want a chance to abuse people with whom they disagree
> from
> > the safety of their computer screen. You are one of the latter.
Those are the people who _do_ see through David Wiggler's trolls and
bullshit right off the bat. He hates that bunch.
[deleted]
Gord McFee
+0000, David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Philip Mathews wrote:
>
> > In >Message-id: <384939FF...@btinternet.com>
> > >
> >
> > >David E Michael david.e...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >Tim Stevens wrote:
> > >
> > >> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:3848246A...@btinternet.com...
> > >> > > > > > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > >> > > > > > news:382B1771...@btinternet.com...
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> > >> > > message
> > >> > > LOL! Trolling is all David E. Michael does!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Philip Mathews
> > >> >
> > >> > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> > >> > entertainment.
> > >> >
> > >> > You, I fear, do not.
> > >>
> > >> [Translation: I post lavish praise on the Nazis and call it criticism and
> > >> when my own words are thrown back at me by others, I go into meltdown and
> > >> call them all liars. People are consistently entertained by my squirming
> > >> earthworm imitation].
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Tim
> > >>
> > >> ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
> > >
> > >I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
> >
> > Why should you. You're the liar.
> >
> > There are some who are
> > >honest
> > >but misguided individuals. However there are others who have no real interest
> > >in
> > >the subject but just want a chance to abuse people with whom they disagree
> > >from
> > >the safety of their computer screen. You are one of the latter.
> >
> > It is you who have no real interest in the subject. You're just a professional
> > prick who steadfastly stays away from the historical discussion of this
> > newsgroup, except on those rare occasions during which you've been embarrassed.
> >
> > And you're the expert at abusing people from behind computer screens. We'll see
> > how you do in Pennsylvania.
> >
> > Now how tall did you say you were?
> >
> > 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
>
> Ah well . . . so much for my attempt to elicit a slight glimmer of something new
> from the most tedious troll of the lot.
Translation of Dave Wigglerese into English: "Damn, that Mathews is
whipping my butt and making me look even more like a fool than usual.
I'd better make some smartass dismissive answer and hope it saves my
ass".
Andrew A. Skolnick
> Tim Stevens wrote:
> > My, you are performing some mighty fancy pirouettes and backflips in
> > a vain attempt to avoid dealing with your own words.
>
> I am the wrong shape for pirouettes and backflips.
Herr Cuddles, you are the wrong shape for a human being.
Your soul is bent into the twisted cross of a swastika. Your
physical form reflects your twisted soul.
<snipt>
> > So much for Cuddles' ability to detect irony.....
> Tim, there's a difference between irony and flagrant dishonesty.
Yes, Cuddles, your pointing this out is an example of irony.
You've already given us countless examples of outrageous
dishonesty.
This statement by David Cuddles Michael, the Neo-Nazis'
poster child, needs no further comment:
> I show Jews a lot of courtesy and tolerance actually. The oft-quoted statement
> of mine reflects the fact that they have generally responded like total
> assholes.
And then the Neo-Nazi poster child offers this bit of
"self-reflection":
> I don't particularly hate anyone. There are some people who are tiresome, however.
Yes, Herr Cuddles, Hitler also found those people
"tiresome," and you, Herr Cuddles, agree with the Fuehrer's
view of those "tiresome" "dishonest people."
> I must say that I am struck by how
> true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the
> Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike
> most Jews whom I meet -- they are arrogant,
> aggressive, dishonest people.
Herr Cuddles, the world finds Neo-Nazis like you very
tiresome. The world has had more than enough of the vile
poison that you spread. The world had to deal with your
National Socialism pestilence 50 years ago and it cost the
lives of many millions of men, women, and children. Now is
it is utterly and nauseatingly tiresome. So Herr Cuddles,
why don't you rush along and join your Fuehrer in Hell?
-- Andrew Skolnick
Yale F. Edeiken
> Tim Stevens wrote:
> > > Nope. I advance ingenious argument and provide sparkling wit and
> > > entertainment.
> > >
> > > You, I fear, do not.
> >
> > [Translation: I post lavish praise on the Nazis and call it criticism
and
> > when my own words are thrown back at me by others, I go into meltdown
and
> > call them all liars. People are consistently entertained by my squirming
> > earthworm imitation].
> I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars. There are some who are
honest
> but misguided individuals. However there are others who have no real
interest in
> the subject but just want a chance to abuse people with whom they disagree
from
> the safety of their computer screen. You are one of the latter.
You are a lair.
The one who has consistently proved that his only intention is to smear
others is Lord Haw Haw.
> Fortunately, it shows.
Only to a person like Lord Haw Haw who admits he has nor personal honor
or intergrity.
Yale F. Edeiken
> Tim Stevens wrote:
> > > I don't call all anti-revisionist posters liars.
> >
> > On the planet earth, accusing all of your opponents who are whipping
your
> > ass on the evidence by calling them 'dishonest' is calling them liars.
Why?
> > What does it mean on your planet?
> What are you ranting about now, Tim?
Your lack of eprsonal honor or integrity.
> > > There are some who are honest
> > > but misguided individuals.
> >
> > Misguided? Surely then you would be willing to 'correct' the 'misguided'
> > evidence that they have presented to you with some of your own. Wonder
of
> > wonders, you haven't.
> If you look on deja.com you'll find that I have. But you're not interested
in
> the truth, are ya, Tim?
If you look on Deja nwes you will find that he has not psoted a single
shred of evidence.
> > Don't tell me - you have to have a special decoder program only
available
> > from your bosom buddies at CODOH (the Committee for the "Open"(TM)
Debate on
> > the Holocaust) which sifts through your usual collection of ad hominem
> > attacks, red baiting, straw men, anti-semititic remarks and gushing
praise
> > of the 'beautiful dream' of the Nazis in order to reveal the heretofore
> > cleverly hidden evidence that the Holocaust as documented by historians
is
> > not accurate. [And *If* you buy this now for the incredibly *low* price
of
> > $189.99, they will throw in for free a *genuine* piece of the *true*
> > Führerbunker secretly spirited to the West by Martin Bormann and
lovingly
> > preserved all these years in South America by Joseph Mengele in the
abbey of
> > St. Adolph of the Twisted Cross in the Buenos Aires catacombs].
> > *That* must be why so many people have missed all this incredible and
> > wonderful evidence that the Holocaust never happens which justifies your
> > saying 'pay no attention to the corpses'.
> I didn't say that. But that won't stop you lying about it I suppose.
It is exactly what you said.
> > Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also
weighed
> > in and called you a liar as well.
> No, those were the dishonest and misguided individuals like you.
Who make what Lord Haw Haw, who admits he has not perosnal honor or
integrity, thinks that anybody who is not national scoialist is "misguided."
> >
> > > However there are others who have no real interest in
> > > the subject but just want a chance to abuse people with whom they
disagree
> > from
> > > the safety of their computer screen. You are one of the latter.
> >
> > Oh, but I assure you I have a rather intense interest in the subject,
which
> > is further amplified by my disgust at people like you who lie and
present
> > half-truths in order to resurrect the most evil regime this world has
ever
> > seen
> What makes you think that it is more evil than Stalin's, for example? Or
Pol
> Pots?
The facts.
> Ah, but I forgot. You can't argue your case. You can only lie and abuse.
Lord Haw Haw describes his only known method of operation.
> > and in an attempt to justify racism
> I don't see anything wrong with defending one's own culture if that's what
you
> mean.
No. What he means is the vicious racism and anit-Semitism you endorse.
> > and ant-semitism in thought, word,
> > and especially deed in the way that the Nazis did.
> Ant semitism? Is that the religion that looks forward to the coming of the
great
> Ant God?
You're wiggling again Lord Haw Haw.
> > Since you have not showed any interest in honest argument,
> False.
True.
> > and since you
> > have gratuitously initiated cowardly attacks on others on this list,
> You mean that I've defended myself against some of the dottiest postings
on the
> Internet?
False.
> > you can
> > expect to continue to be the object of ferocious and unrelenting attack
> You mean dishonest and abusive posts? Great! That will just show the world
the
> nature of at least some of those in the anti-revisionist camp.
That is, they will defenda themselves against the leis of Lord Haw Haw.
> >
> > until such time as you publically repudiate those statements that you
have
> > made in support of the kind of murder that the Nazis practiced,
> Well you're hardly going to get anyone to repudiate anything using your
daft
> tactics. I don't support murder. I do support fighting communism. Don't
you?
You support murder and racism.
> > and in
> > support of the anti-semitism that they used as justification for
genocide
> > and mass murder.
> I have actually criticized their anti-semitism. But you carefully ignored
that
> part of the relevant post.
You are a liar. You made no su8ch criticism, you just stated they
carried it to extremes.
You whole-heartedly agreed with its basic concept.
> > Expect nothing but utter contempt from the people on this list until you
do.
> Tim, when I fail to get utter contempt from dishonest nutters like you I
will
> know that I am failing dismally in life.
You ahve already failed dismally in life.
> > > Fortunately, it shows.
> >
> > Suuuure it does. That must be why you have had just *ever* so many
people
> > posting in support of you. Gee, all of those people who have e-mailed
you
> > with their support must suddenly have remembered that when it came time
to
> > show such support, they suddenly remember prior engagements. What an
amazing
> > coincidence.
> What are you ranting on about now, Tim?
The fact that you came to sci.skpetic because your frantic efforts to
smear others and defend national socialism were slm dunked.
It was you who stated that "true sckeptics" would make "mincemeat" of
the Holocaust.
And you received not a single post supporting you.
> > Funny how even people who have normally not posted in threads like these
> > have posted their low opinions of your litany of lies.
> False. Out of a world containing millions upon millions of Internet users
there
> are about twelve regular people who come here to post against revisionism.
Some
> are honest are well informed. Others, like you, are not.
And all have criticized you and your lies and your dishonest tactics.
You have not produced a single supporter.
Yale F. Edeiken
> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>
> > David E Michael wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > >Funny how all of these 'honest but misguided individuals' have also
weighed
> > > > >in and called you a liar as well.
> > > >
> > > > David is rather fond of the locution "honest but misguided" or "good
> > > > but misguided." I recall a previous discussion where the question
> > > > came up whether David endorsed the idea that good (but misguided)
> > > > people blew up synagogues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually I have condemned the blowing up of synagogues. But don't let
the truth
> > > spoil a good story.
> >
> > You also supported Buford Furrow as a "good but misguided" individual.
Or was that
> > Benjamin Smith? One loses track of the murderous bigots you support.
> I don't know who those two gentlemen are so I could hardly have supported
them.
But you did.
> And
> you, if I recall correctly, supported the mass murder of hundreds of
thousands of
> civilians in Japan.
Liar.
Provide some evidence of that.
Strange that you make charges like that and then run away. But then, as
you admit, you have no personal honor or integrity.
Tim Stevens
>
>
> Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
>
> > David Cuddles Michael wrote:
> >
> > > Tim Stevens wrote:
> >
> > > > a vain attempt to avoid dealing with your own words.
> > >
> >
> > Herr Cuddles, you are the wrong shape for a human being.
> > Your soul is bent into the twisted cross of a swastika. Your
> > physical form reflects your twisted soul.
> >
>
You know something David? I actually feel pity for you. You are so trapped
by your hatred that you cannot see what everybody else on these two lists
can see; namely that you will always be unable to get ahead in life because
you adhere to the philosophy of a group which does not encourage
responsibility and self-reliance among its members but will always be
seeking someone to blame for the misery that it adherants feel. That is
precisely what the Nazis feel.
Failure is not due to your own laziness or inability. It is due to those
evil Jews or Pakistanis or Indians or blacks or fill in the blank. People
who don't agree with you must be dupes or commies. Responsibility for your
misery lies somewhere other than the person staring back at you in the
mirror, and you do your utmost to make sure that you try to pass that misery
around to others in word and in deed.
That, Herr Cuddles, is why we oppose you and will always oppose you, not
only for the sake of those who would be harmed by the hatred which you even
try to hide from yourself but which is apparently obvious to all who have
encountered you, but also believe it or not for your own sake.
> >
> > <snipt>
> >
> > > > So much for Cuddles' ability to detect irony.....
> >
> > > Tim, there's a difference between irony and flagrant dishonesty.
> >
> > Yes, Cuddles, your pointing this out is an example of irony.
> > You've already given us countless examples of outrageous
> > dishonesty.
> >
>
> Yet you cannot produce any! How strange!
*We* don't need to. You have produced enough rather flagrant dishonesty to
fill several hard disk drives. All we need do is help people do a mix and
match of your own words, that's all.
> >
> > This statement by David Cuddles Michael, the Neo-Nazis'
> > poster child, needs no further comment:
> >
>
> Nor do most of your posts, which leads me to wonder why I bother.
It is no real secret to anyone that you bather because your ego is on line.
How incredibly sad it must be for you, Mr. Michael, that in order for you to
finally find your humanity, your ego must essentially die so that the human
which might be buried in there underneath all of that hatred might finally
emerge and make amends.
> >
> > > I show Jews a lot of courtesy and tolerance actually. The oft-quoted
statement
> > > of mine reflects the fact that they have generally responded like
total
> > > assholes.
> >
> > And then the Neo-Nazi poster child offers this bit of
> > "self-reflection":
> >
> > > I don't particularly hate anyone. There are some people who are
tiresome, however.
> >
> > Yes, Herr Cuddles, Hitler also found those people
> > "tiresome," and you, Herr Cuddles, agree with the Fuehrer's
> > view of those "tiresome" "dishonest people."
> >
>
> Thank you for telling me with whom I agree. Hey, maybe instead of being a
journalist you
> should get yourself a job as America's answer to Mystic Meg and Psychic
Psmith.
Andrew merely points out who you have said you agree with in your own words
as follows:
> >
> > > I must say that I am struck by how
> > > true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the
> > > Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike
> > > most Jews whom I meet -- they are arrogant,
> > > aggressive, dishonest people.
You also apparently missed your own masterly display of doublespeak by
calling Jews 'total assholes' in one line and saying you 'don't particularly
hate anyone' in a subsequent line. These are *your* own words, Herr Cuddles,
not mine, or Andrew's or those of John Morris, or Phillip Matthews, or
Hilary Ostrov, or Yale Edeiken, or Ken McVay, or Sara Salzman, or Steve
Wolk, or anyone else who has registered outrage at your 'creative ironies'.
> >
> > Herr Cuddles, the world finds Neo-Nazis like you very
> > tiresome.
>
> And I find you very tiresome too, Andrew 'The World' Skolnick.
But remember, Andrew, Herr Cuddles does not 'hate' you or particularly hate
anyone. His lies and slander and personal attacks are actually an expression
of his feeing tired and not getting his daily dose of Geritol. Didn't you
know?
> > The world has had more than enough of the vile
> > poison that you spread.
>
> Well, Andrew 'The World' Skolnick doesn't have to read my posts if he
doesn't like them.
> There's such a thing as a killfile you know.
Except that the people who have responded to you would rather like to keep
an eye on you to make sure that you don't spread your hatred to other people
in an attempt to reincarnate those 'inefficient' Nazis so that you and your
Nazi buddies can finish the work that they did not.
> > The world had to deal with your
> > National Socialism pestilence 50 years ago and it cost the
> > lives of many millions of men, women, and children.
>
> Um . . . Andrew . . . I wasn't alive 50 years ago, so you can hardly blame
me for World
> War II.
The racist hatred you subscribe to whole-heartedly, however, was quite alive
and well 50 years ago and responsible for the death of millions. The faces
are different 50 years layer, but the monstrosity is the same.
> > Now is
> > it is utterly and nauseatingly tiresome. So Herr Cuddles,
> > why don't you rush along and join your Fuehrer in Hell?
> >
>
> As I said, Andrew, I'll be waiting for ya with my pitchfork sharpened.
Andrew, he is already living a life of hell, as if that is not utterly
clear. Not even his racist buddies have come to his defense, and the racist
fantasy world he has constructed for himself has been so easily ripped to
shreads by everyone who has responded to him.
All we need do is to ensure that he does not try to expand the boundries of
hell beyond his own fragile psyche, given the fact that he has turned down
every attempt to turn his back on the hatred which so drives him.
Jeff Sinclair
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>
> > >>>>>
> >
> > >
> > > But, yes, his concern at the time seemed to be that bombing
> > > synagogues was simply a matter of bad tactics.
> > >
> >
> > No. I don't accept terrorism against the general public.
Huh. Mr. Michael's use of the qualifier 'against the general public'
could suggest that he does not dismiss _all_ terrorism. Terrorism is by
definition an act committed against the general public. Please clarify
what you mean, Mr. Michael.
> > <<<<<
> >
> > Why, how else then (as you yourself have said) are the nationalists
to make
> > their point known?
> >
> > Forget it, Curdles. You supported the bombing of a gay pub in
London as an act
> > of political speech.
>
> False. I condemned it.
Where did you condemn it, Mr. Michael? Can you access the post where
you condemned it from the Deja tracker or at least provide a quote?
> > Please don't assume we'd forget.
> >
> > -- --Dep
> >
> > "Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You
can't
> > easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
> > --David Mamet --Peter
Schickele
> >
>
> You should try practising what you preach.
>
> >
> > Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
> > http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
>
> David
>
>
--
"I have always been here" - Kosh
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
No.
> My, you are performing some mighty fancy pirouettes and backflips in
> a vain attempt to avoid dealing with your own words.
I am the wrong shape for pirouettes and backflips.
>
> Your latest bellyflop, however, rates about a 1.5 from the judges, and that
> doesn't even count your mom, disguised as the East German judge. Let's do an
> instant replay of that shall we?
>
> Michael maneuver #1 in response to observation that he supports the BNP:
> "That is actually laughable. You really haven't got a clue what you're
> talking about, Tim."
>
Nope, what was laughable was your description of the BNP as the 'British version
of the Nazi Party'. Do you even know the name of the guy who runs it?
>
> Michael maneuver #2 as a follow-up:
> "Nope. It means I agree with what he said about the BNP."
>
> This 1-2 combination was first identified some months back as what is now
> known in internet gymnastics circles as 'The Giwer Grounding', not to be
> confused with 'The Fosbury Flop' in that manuever #2 is used to argue
> against maneuver #1. Internet gymnastics historians, however, have yet to
> document a case of this manuever successfully being completed without the
> internet gymnast attempting it falling hard on his face.
>
> And now, back to live action:
>
You mean back to bare-faced lies, Tim?
What's your point, Tim? I said I agreed with Mr Vange on the BNP. I agree with
Mr Vange on the BNP. If you disagree with him, that's fine by me, but this is a
free country and if I want to agree with Vange about the BNP there's nothing you
can do to stop me.
>
> > > Gosh, how ever could we have
> > > gotten the idea from this statement that you support the British
> National
> > > Party when it was so obviously a powerful denial of Vange's support for
> > > them?
> > >
> >
> > Nope. It was obviously a statement of support for them.
>
> So much for Cuddles' ability to detect irony.....
>
Tim, there's a difference between irony and flagrant dishonesty.
>
> > >
> > > > > that he routinely uses anti-semitic terminology ('sin-o-gogues' Mr.
> > > > > Michael?)
> > > >
> > > > Where, liar?
> > >
> > > "I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of
> the
> > > Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet --
> they
> > > are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people."
> > >
> >
> > I don't see the phrase 'sin-o-gogues' there, liar. Where did I use the
> term
> > 'sin-o-gogues'? Come on -- we're all waiting for you to tell us.
>
> You didn't, as the context shows.
Thank you.
> You agreed with Mr. Vangel's statement
> which included that anti-semitic remark.
I agreed with Vange on the BNP.
> Elsewhere you have shown contempt
> for Jews as in the oft-quoted statement of yours above, which you have gone
> to Olympian extremes to avoid.
I show Jews a lot of courtesy and tolerance actually. The oft-quoted statement
of mine reflects the fact that they have generally responded like total
assholes.
> As I have given you a chance before to do, do
> you repudiate such comments that you have made and which Mr. Vangel has made
> which you have 'seconded'? Yes or no?
Nope.
>
> > >
> > > One more time, Mr. Michael - do you repudiate this statement of yours or
> > > not?
> >
> > Which statement? I never used the phrase 'sin-o-gogues'. That's an
> outright lie
> > from you. Do you repudiate that lie or not?
>
> You did not use that phrase. Mr. Vangel did. You agreed with it? Or do you
> repudiate your agreement with it? Yes or No?
>
I agreed with Vange on the BNP. The phrase you object was evidently his attempt
to be ironic.
>
> > > You have been reminded of it constantly by many people and given a
> > > chance to shun such hatred.
> >
> > I don't particularly hate anyone. There are some people who are tiresome,
> > however.
>
> Oh, I see. So the a comment such as "I must say that I am struck by how
> true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the
> Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they
> are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people" is meant to say that they are
> 'tiresome', Führer Cuddles?
It's meant to say what it does say, liar Tim.
> Gosh, apparently that one evaded the
> consciousness of everyone reading these posts except for your mythic base of
> fans e-mailing you with their support who seem to have not materialized in
> Usenet to support you.
Tim, you are a pathological liar.
> Rather amusing how so many people have seemed to have
> misinterpreted such statements. Or do you wish to publically renounce such
> statements? Yes or No?
I wish to 'publically', and indeed publicly, suggest that you seek psychiatric
help.
>
> > > Funny how you have avoided doing that so that it
> > > might actually be possible to have a semi-rational discussion with you.
> > >
> >
> > From your performance here, Tim, it is manifestly obvious that you're not
> > interested in having a semi-rational discussion at all. You're just into
> > smearing, lying and abusing. Which is rather good because I'm into
> exposing
> > smearers, liars and abusers like you.
>
> Oh, that's right. Anyone who disagrees with you, uses your own words to
> display that you are a Nazi, uses evidence to debunk your crackpot theory
> that Naziism 'was a beautiful dream' and that we should just 'ignore the
> corpses' caused by the most murderous regime in history, is either a
> 'smearer', 'liar'. or 'abuser'. LOL!
>
No, Tim. Only those who have to resort to smears, lies and abuse because they
can't think of any good arguments.
You seem to fall neatly into that category.
>
> That would all non-Nazis, which would be about 99% of the population of the
> earth who views Nazis with utter disgust.
Actually, I think you'll find that most people view them indifference these
days.
>
> Well, Cuddles, you just keep right on 'exposing' me. I don't mind.
I don't have to. You expose yourself every time you post crap.
> If you
> are too stupid to figure out that it is not even anything that I have said
> but your own words which have made you look foolish, I'm more than game to
> continue this 'conversation' indefinitely.
And if you're to stupid to realize that your attempts at 'irony' strike most
people as dishonest then so am I.
What the f*** are you talking about, Tim?
> You have been asked this question now several
> times, even before John Morris reminded you of your support for such
> characterizations in your own words.
The question doesn't make sense.
>
> > > Why do you keep on
> > > insisting that we make a fool of you?
> > >
> >
> > I'm just replying to your posts so that you keep them coming to show the
> world
> > the sort of people the revisionists have to contend with every day of
> every
> > year.
>
> *You* a revisionist? ROTFL! Legitimate Historical Revisionists do not run
> away from evidence or refuse to deal with it by throwing out every dishonest
> trick in the book.
You haven't presented any evidence, Tim. You've just provided a few
out-of-context quotes to try to support your contention that I am a rabid Nazi.
That's all you seem capable of doing. It isn't even an original trick -- John
Morris dreamed it up a couple of months ago.
> Your dishonesty has been rather well-displayed and
> publically documented in your use of gratuitous ad hominems, red herrings,
> straw men, and tu quoques.
I take it you are talking to yourself now?
>
> But do please continue to reply to my posts; no doubt by now the letters of
> support for you in your 'holy' struggle against thoses nasty
> anti-revisionists with their dishonest techniques of posting evidence and
> throwing your words back at you must surely be flooding your e-mailbox by
> now, just as they have been positively overwhelming in their support of you
> on this NG.
Tim, the only reason why *I* am bothering to reply to your trollery is because
nobody has posted anything more interesting to reply to tonight.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > Oh, then you wish to change your mind and denounce people who firebomb
> > > synogogues as murderers?
> >
> > I wish to retain the position that I have always held and denounce people
> who
> > firebomb anyone as murderers (or at least arsonists, depending on the
> > circumstances). That includes, sir, those who firebomb revisionist
> publishers.
> > Do you denounce them?
>
> That is a good first step forward. I also utterly denounce such violence and
> murderous intent directed at 'revisionist' publishers such as Zundel. Let's
> see if we can now move forward another step. I and others have asked you
> these questions before:
>
> Do you shun the anti-semitic hatred which is behind these attacks,
Yup.
> such as
> the kind of anti-semitic statement you made which has been cited several
> times previously? Yes or no?
Nope.
> Do you renounce the use of violence against political opponents which you
> have previously supported who have done nothing wrong or illegal, such as
> the communists in Germany who were killed by Hitler? Yes or no?
Depends on the circumstances -- for example, at times of war, or when being
attacked, you have to use violence against your political opponents, don't you
agree?
>
> Do you renounce the use of violence and murder to enforce 'discipline' which
> you previously suggested you supported in settling intra-party disputes? Yes
> or No?
Yup, except in times of war.
>
> Publically renounce these things which Nazis and racists in your country and
> mine have publically endorsed,
Some of them. And a heck of a lot of socialists in your country and mine have
endorsed them too.
> and perhaps the opinion of everyone who has
> responded to your posts and which find these things utterly and totally
> hateful and despicable will begin to change. It's totally up to you.
Tim, if those of you who have to tell lies and hurl abuse to support your case
start thinking well of me, that will make me hang my head in shame. While you
guys are spewing forth your hatred and nonsense, you're reassuring me that I'm
on the right side.
It is the logic of every war since the Stone Age.
>
> Still one more time. Do you publically repudiate the murder of political
> enemies, even though they have not done anything wrong or illegal? Do you
> repudiate such evil? Yes or no? You can avoid the question all you want, but
> the question will not go away?
It's been answered very clearly above.
>
> > >
> > > Until you do so, it would seem that my and other people's assessment of
> you
> > > is right on the mark and rather brutally honest.
> > >
> >
> > There is nothing honest about you, Tim.
>
> (Yawn). If you say so. How terribly dishonest it has been of me to present
> your own word back to you, ask you if you repudiate political opinions which
> have been linked to mass murder in the past and in the present (ie - The
> Oklahoma City bombing) and Hate crimes, and present empirical evidence that
> the holocaust happened the way and to the extent that *all* legitimate
> academic historians have documented.
>
> Well, you go on calling me dishonest all you like, Führer Cuddles, and the
> rest of us reading this will go on forming our opinions to the contrary
> based upon your own words and upon the evidence. I'm game.
Tim, I am quite happy to allow the readers to form their own opinions of your
honesty. Every time you tell a whopper I will point it out.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > Ah well, at least an attempt at humour is a change from the usual
> rabid
> > > hatred.
> > >
> > > Hatred? No. White-hot anger at your deceit? Definitely.
> >
> > There is no deceit, so I suspect it's a case of letting off steam at me
> rather
> > than getting into trouble for beating your
> > wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/hamster/rubber doll/whatever.
>
> Wrong again, Führer Cuddles. I have been happily married to the same woman
> now for 7 1/2 years without incident and we have two wonderful and
> precocious children. Your pathetically obvious and crude 'do you still beat
> your wife' gambit does far more to damage you than it does me or anyone who
> knows me.
>
> But do go ahead and continue your slander. After all, according to you, Yale
> has not 'issued a summons'
I still haven't received one.
> and since that is the case, you therefore have
> nothing to worry about from me if I say were to appear as a witness for the
> plaintiff.
Cripes, that'd really knock the nails in his metaphorical coffin.
>
> Are you sure about that, Mr. Michael?
Dr Michael, actually.
> Think reeeeally hard about the
> implications of your behavior and your demand that he sue you.
Yup. Either he won't sue me, in which case I'll be reminding him of the matter
for the rest of his natural life, or he will sue me, in which case he will lose.
>
> > > The difference between the two is that the latter can disappear with
> your public
> > > repudiation of such hateful statements as several of us have reminded
> you of
> > > time and again. You alone hold the key to changing all that.
> > >
> >
> > The statements in question were either not made by me ('sin-o-gogues'), or
> > ripped out of context and thereby grossly distorted. But you can keep on
> > hammering the same point and I'll keep on hammering the same reply.
>
> They were *not* uttered by you. They were *not* however, ripped out of
> context. John Morris posted the entire letter wherein these comments
> appeared. You have been asked the meaning of your 'seconding' of Vangel's
> statements and asked if that also included repudiation of the anti-semitic
> remark by Vangel and the repudiation of such violence as firebombing
> 'sin-o-gogues'. You repudiated the latter which was a good first step in the
> right direction.
>
> You have not, however, repudiated the anti-semitic remark by Vangel whose
> statement you 'seconded' just as you have not renounced the anti-semitism
> which drove the murder of millions by the Nazis, which you have previously
> characterized as 'true-to-life'.
>
Another whopper from Tim. I have not characterized 'the anti-semitism which
drove the murder of millions by the Nazis' as true to life.
>
> And you wonder why so many people on this list and on a.r. find your posts
> so utterly abhorrent. Amazing.
You know what posters and lurkers are thinking? You are psychic as well as
psychotic? I am most impressed, Timothy.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
Tim
David E Michael
Jeff Sinclair wrote:
> In article <3849D8FF...@btinternet.com>,
> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Buck Turgidson wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But, yes, his concern at the time seemed to be that bombing
> > > > synagogues was simply a matter of bad tactics.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No. I don't accept terrorism against the general public.
>
> Huh. Mr. Michael's use of the qualifier 'against the general public'
> could suggest that he does not dismiss _all_ terrorism. Terrorism is by
> definition an act committed against the general public. Please clarify
> what you mean, Mr. Michael.
>
Collins Concise English Dictionary, 3rd edition, p. 1394, defines terrorism
as:
'1. the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.
2. the act of terrorizing. 3. the state of being terrorized'
Thus one can envisage cases where it might be used against an enemy in
wartime, an occupying power, or against carefully selected targets in order
to avoid some catastrophe or greater ill. An example would be the American
bombing of Serbia during the Kosova debacle. By any standards it was naked
terrorism against a sovereign state. However, given that the state was
indulging in horrific behaviour it was quite justifiable terrorism. The end
(getting Mr Milosevic out of Kosova) justified the means.
>
> > > <<<<<
> > >
> > > Why, how else then (as you yourself have said) are the nationalists
> to make
> > > their point known?
> > >
> > > Forget it, Curdles. You supported the bombing of a gay pub in
> London as an act
> > > of political speech.
> >
> > False. I condemned it.
>
> Where did you condemn it, Mr. Michael? Can you access the post where
> you condemned it from the Deja tracker or at least provide a quote?
Try this one, Mr Sinclar:
<begin quote>
From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: W O N D E R F U L N E W S
Date: 20 Jun 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <376C3B20...@cableinet.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7kf3bl$4gvk$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>
<376c349f...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
<01beba79$b6817860$ef30e6cf@default> <376C0C6B...@btinternet.com>
<376c1fee...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: ab...@cableinet.net
X-Trace: news1.cableinet.co.uk 929839722 9859 194.117.153.217 (20 Jun 1999
00:48:42 GMT)
Organization: Cable Internet (post doesn't reflect views of Cable Internet)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Dav...@cableinet.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jun 1999 00:48:42 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
John Morris wrote:
> In <376C0C6B...@btinternet.com>, on Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:32:28
> +0100, "David.E.Michael" <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Alex Vange wrote:
>
> >> John Morris <John....@xmunge.UAlberta.CA> wrote in article
> >> <376c349f...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>...
>
> >> > In <7kf3bl$4gvk$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, on Fri, 18 Jun
1999
> >> > 23:43:28 -0400, "JimBo" <ji...@anon.fi.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >My fellow Americans:
>
> >> > Hello, Anton.
>
> >> > >This day will mark the beginning of the reclamation of our Country
from the
> >> > >clutches of Zionism. The 'tip ot the iceberg' is rising above the
Sea of
> >> > >Jericho.
>
> >> > The what?!! ROTFL!!
>
> >> > >Three, watch my lips, THREE sin-o-gogues were fire-bombed today in
> >> > >Sacramento, even as Clinton spoke from Germany saying he would
invalidate
> >> > >Congress' mandate to uphold the Second Amendment.
>
> >> > If Americans had any brains at all, they'd repeal the Second
> >> > Amendment.
>
> >> > >I suggest that Ken Mc Vay and his clan have current and valid
passports. The
> >> > >WAR is coming into the open.
>
> >> There is no way that the war against Zionist control can be won
by
> >> firebombing sin-o-gogues. It would be a terrible thing if good but
> >> misguided people had to spend years in prison if they got caught doing
such
> >> senseless things. Lets stop playing games and fight the enemy for
real.
> >> Lets support the best group on the earth today. The group is not in
the
> >> U.S.A., but if they win it would be a real victory for the right wing
> >> everywhere. The group is the British National Party. Look them up on
the
> >> internet. If you don't support them yet, it's time you started.
>
> >I'd just like to second those comments. Mr Vange has hit the nail
squarely on
> >the head.
>
> It is good to see you make a commital statement for a change.
>
> So let's see what you "seconded":
>
> "Good" people firebomb synagogues.
False. Mr Morris is again playing the old misrepresentation game. Stupid
people
firebomb synagogues.
> I suppose "good" people drag others
> to their deaths behind pickup trucks.
Again Mr Morris is being dishonest. I have publicly stated that the
perpetrators of
that incident should be executed.
> "Good" people plant nail bombs
> in gay bars (after all, "how else are Nationalists to be heard").
>
Incorrect. The dweeb responsible for that was a lone nut. His activities
have been
roundly condemned by British nationalists, including the BNP.
>
> > We live in a country where there are closed-circuit cameras all over
> >the place,
>
> The BNP are not the only people who oppose the cameras.
>
I don't oppose the cameras. I think they are a damn good idea. Not least
because, as I
stated, they make life tough for criminals.
>
> > DNA fingerprinting can identify you from any bits of you that you
> >happen to leave at the scene of the crime,
>
> And the BNP would what? Ban DNA research? However would you achieve
> your dream of humanity perfected by genetic engineering, then?
>
Mr Morris is so obviously shooting off at a complete tangent that comment
from me
would be superfluous.
>
> > and policing has advanced to the
> >stage where one's chances of getting away with serious crime (as opposed
to
> >irritating crime that's 'not worth' investigating) are very remote
unless one
> >is a serious professional who really knows what he's doing (in which
case one
> >wouldn't be here).
>
> So there's an up side, too.
>
Indeed. (Erm . . . wasn't that what I was saying.)
>
> >By the way, the BNP website is:
>
> >http://www.bnp.net
>
> I suppose you're going to tell us they're not Nazis either.
>
I think you're the kind of person who would call anyone a Nazi if the urge
took you.
>
> [Actual, as opposed to imaginary, URL left intact to avoid accusations
> of dishonest snipping]
>
Why? Pretty much everything else you post involves dishonesty.
>
> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
<end quote>
Please note that I described the person responsible for the bombings as a
'dweeb' and a 'lone nut' and indicated that he'd been condemned by all
nationalists.
And if that wasn't strong enough, let me condemn him again right here.
David
David E Michael
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> David Cuddles Michael wrote:
>
> > Tim Stevens wrote:
>
> > > My, you are performing some mighty fancy pirouettes and backflips in
> > > a vain attempt to avoid dealing with your own words.
> >
> > I am the wrong shape for pirouettes and backflips.
>
> Herr Cuddles, you are the wrong shape for a human being.
> Your soul is bent into the twisted cross of a swastika. Your
> physical form reflects your twisted soul.
>
Yes, yes Andrew. And there's a Nazi fiend crawling up your trouser leg!
>
> <snipt>
>
> > > So much for Cuddles' ability to detect irony.....
>
> > Tim, there's a difference between irony and flagrant dishonesty.
>
> Yes, Cuddles, your pointing this out is an example of irony.
> You've already given us countless examples of outrageous
> dishonesty.
>
Yet you cannot produce any! How strange!
>
> This statement by David Cuddles Michael, the Neo-Nazis'
> poster child, needs no further comment:
>
Nor do most of your posts, which leads me to wonder why I bother.
>
> > I show Jews a lot of courtesy and tolerance actually. The oft-quoted statement
> > of mine reflects the fact that they have generally responded like total
> > assholes.
>
> And then the Neo-Nazi poster child offers this bit of
> "self-reflection":
>
> > I don't particularly hate anyone. There are some people who are tiresome, however.
>
> Yes, Herr Cuddles, Hitler also found those people
> "tiresome," and you, Herr Cuddles, agree with the Fuehrer's
> view of those "tiresome" "dishonest people."
>
Thank you for telling me with whom I agree. Hey, maybe instead of being a journalist you
should get yourself a job as America's answer to Mystic Meg and Psychic Psmith.
>
> > I must say that I am struck by how
> > true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the
> > Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike
> > most Jews whom I meet -- they are arrogant,
> > aggressive, dishonest people.
>
> Herr Cuddles, the world finds Neo-Nazis like you very
> tiresome.
And I find you very tiresome too, Andrew 'The World' Skolnick.
> The world has had more than enough of the vile
> poison that you spread.
Well, Andrew 'The World' Skolnick doesn't have to read my posts if he doesn't like them.
There's such a thing as a killfile you know.
> The world had to deal with your
> National Socialism pestilence 50 years ago and it cost the
> lives of many millions of men, women, and children.
Um . . . Andrew . . . I wasn't alive 50 years ago, so you can hardly blame me for World
War II.
> Now is
> it is utterly and nauseatingly tiresome. So Herr Cuddles,
> why don't you rush along and join your Fuehrer in Hell?
>
As I said, Andrew, I'll be waiting for ya with my pitchfork sharpened.
>
> -- Andrew Skolnick
David
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire kingdom, Tim,
I would use one of the other computers, a false user ID, and quite probably a
different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But you don't have the intelligence to
think of that do you, Tim? All you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it
Tim?
David
Tim Stevens
>
> If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire kingdom, Tim,
> I would use one of the other computers, a false user ID, and quite probably a
> different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But you don't have the intelligence to
> think of that do you, Tim? All you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it
> Tim?
>
> David
Big Deal. Go ahead and do it. I know of several people who do that all the time.
Your Nazi buddies Giwer and Tavish immediately come to mind. Your alias would spout
forth the same hatred and would be attacked for the same hatred whether you
represent yourself as David Michael or Groucho Marx or Adolf Hitler. You would
likely not be attacked if you did not spout forth statements such as have been cited
repeatedly against you.
In fact, I encourage it. Maybe you can make a fresh start and through your new alias
turn your back on the evil that you have espoused such as advocating 'killing the
enemy before thay kill us'. For example:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/news1203.htm
"Defense lawyers admitted Thill shot Dia and VanVelkinburgh. But they said e suffers
from an extreme case of bipolar disorder and so could not have formed the intent
necessary for first-degree murder. Thill faced a possible death sentence if
convicted of that crime.
During the trial, defense witnesses detailed Thill's horrific childhood, which
included repeated stays in institutions and numerous attempts at suicide. Thill,
they said, eventually came to believe he was a son of the devil and embraced white
supremacy because it gave him a sense of self-worth.
One of the two holdout jurors, Tom Mitscher, said the defense put on a compelling
case.
"I think the man is extremely ill,' said Mitscher. "I don't think he has a
realization of reality. ... I'm not sure he was able to make any rational, sane
decisions.''
During the trial, jurors were shown a picture of a bare-chested Thill giving the
stiff-armed Nazi salute. A second photo showed Thill's chest and arms covered with
Nazi tattoos.
They also saw the videotaped interview Thill gave to a TV reporter after his arrest
in which he confessed to the crime.
"I see a black guy at the bus stop and I kind of decided he didn't belong where he
was and how easy it would be to take him out right there,'' Thill said.
"In a war, anybody caught in an enemy uniform should be taken out.''
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Juror Withrow said she had no doubt that Thill had deliberately gone the night of
the crime looking for people of color to hunt down. In addition to shooting Dia,
prosecutors said, Thill also beat up a Hispanic man and tried to kill another black
man."
In case it has not occured to you, arguments to 'take out the enemy before they take
you out' is the logic of terrorists and murderers. And you wonder why people go out
of their way to tear you a new asshole on the internet. The above is a recent
example of that logic in action and is hardly a unique case. You would only do
yourself a favor by discarding that publicly, privately, and in your heart.
If it came down to a case where you were making threats of the kind made against
Yale Edeiken or Andrew Skolnick, however, computer professionals can easily be
enlisted to track down the source of such terrorist threats as you know. So there is
really nothing to fear from you taking on an alias whether you intend to simply hide
your identity or even if you use it to threaten and harass.
But you could also save face and start over again, this time choosing to act and
behave in a civilized manner and dropping your hatred and anti-semitism. No one will
mind and no one will be the wiser. You might actually be able to make some friends
that way. If you simply want to fall into your old patterns of making personal
attacks and using evasive and dishonest srguments, you will be spotted as quickly as
Giwer has been in his resort to changing identities.
The choice is yours.
--
- Tim
******* Aspera ad Astra *******
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
>
> >
> > If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire kingdom, Tim,
> > I would use one of the other computers, a false user ID, and quite probably a
> > different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But you don't have the intelligence to
> > think of that do you, Tim? All you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it
> > Tim?
> >
> > David
>
> Big Deal. Go ahead and do it. I know of several people who do that all the time.
> Your Nazi buddies Giwer and Tavish immediately come to mind. Your alias would spout
> forth the same hatred and would be attacked for the same hatred whether you
> represent yourself as David Michael or Groucho Marx or Adolf Hitler. You would
> likely not be attacked if you did not spout forth statements such as have been cited
> repeatedly against you.
>
You are under the mistaken impression that I don't enjoy being attacked, Tim. You folks
do it so badly that the sort of people whom I wish to influence would immediately
dismiss your attacks as the rantings of a complete nitwit.
The statements in question are invariably cited out of context and in a way that makes
it seem, to those who have not been following the arguments, that I'm saying the
opposite to what I was actually saying. That is dishonest and will be recognized as such
by anyone of value.
That was certainly not a citation from me.
>
> In case it has not occured to you, arguments to 'take out the enemy before they take
> you out' is the logic of terrorists and murderers.
It also happens to be the logic of conventional warfare and has been since the
Paleolithic. Do you disagree?
> And you wonder why people go out
> of their way to tear you a new asshole on the internet. The above is a recent
> example of that logic in action and is hardly a unique case. You would only do
> yourself a favor by discarding that publicly, privately, and in your heart.
>
No. The consequence would be to put oneself at a grave disadvantage in any armed
conflict. I should emphasize that what I'm saying here is not particularly radical. It
is the philosophy of pretty much every army on earth.
>
> If it came down to a case where you were making threats of the kind made against
> Yale Edeiken or Andrew Skolnick, however, computer professionals can easily be
> enlisted to track down the source of such terrorist threats as you know. So there is
> really nothing to fear from you taking on an alias whether you intend to simply hide
> your identity or even if you use it to threaten and harass.
>
I have no wish to harass anyone, Tim. While you folks are posting here you are just
making yourselves look like dishonest twits. Why should I wish to discourage you from
doing that? Those people who do resort to such tactics are no better, in my view, than
you, Skolnick and Edeiken. It's the same sort of mentality in each case.
>
> But you could also save face and start over again, this time choosing to act and
> behave in a civilized manner and dropping your hatred and anti-semitism.
I've told you that I don't particularly hate anyone. As for 'anti-semitism' -- I'm quite
happy to do my bit to get on well with any Jewish person. The problem is that, whenever
I've tried it in the past, I've invariably ended up disappointed at best and ripped of
at worst. (Actually there are a couple of exceptions.) The sort of anti-semitism you
seem to have in mind is a rabid loathing of all things Jewish. I don't feel that. I just
feel pissed off that, however decent and fair I try to be, these people invariably seem
to let me down. I attribute it to a culture of 'machismo'.
> No one will
> mind and no one will be the wiser. You might actually be able to make some friends
> that way. If you simply want to fall into your old patterns of making personal
> attacks and using evasive and dishonest srguments, you will be spotted as quickly as
> Giwer has been in his resort to changing identities.
>
If one uses a different computer, ISP, and style, and posts in different places, that is
quite unlikely. However, it is not a strategy I intend to pursue.
>
> The choice is yours.
> --
> - Tim
>
> ******* Aspera ad Astra *******
David
Tim Stevens
> Tim Stevens wrote:
>
> > David E Michael wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire kingdom, Tim,
> > > I would use one of the other computers, a false user ID, and quite probably a
> > > different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But you don't have the intelligence to
> > > think of that do you, Tim? All you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it
> > > Tim?
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Big Deal. Go ahead and do it. I know of several people who do that all the time.
> > Your Nazi buddies Giwer and Tavish immediately come to mind. Your alias would spout
> > forth the same hatred and would be attacked for the same hatred whether you
> > represent yourself as David Michael or Groucho Marx or Adolf Hitler. You would
> > likely not be attacked if you did not spout forth statements such as have been cited
> > repeatedly against you.
> >
>
> You are under the mistaken impression that I don't enjoy being attacked, Tim. You folks
> do it so badly that the sort of people whom I wish to influence would immediately
> dismiss your attacks as the rantings of a complete nitwit.
>
[Slapping forehead] Oh, that's right. So *that's* why so many of your many 'supporters' have
valiantly rushed to your defense. How careless of me not to have seen this 'silent
majority'.
Thank you ever so much for clarifying 'the type of people whom I wish to influence' for the
readers of this thread, by the way. Since you did not denounce the logic of the Nazi boy
Thill as cited below, but in fact went out of your way to justify the logic that he used in
the murder of a black man by stating 'It also happens to be the logic of conventional
warfare and has been since the Paleolithic. Do you disagree?', just as you have justified
the Nazis murder of communists and later Jews who after all were seen as enemies by the
Nazis, you indict yourself as an accessory to murder. It must be people like Thill that you
are trying to influence, wouldn't you say?
>
> The statements in question are invariably cited out of context and in a way that makes
> it seem, to those who have not been following the arguments, that I'm saying the
> opposite to what I was actually saying. That is dishonest and will be recognized as such
> by anyone of value.
>
Wrong again, Herr Cuddles. People who have cited the oft-repeated statements have gone out
of their way to include the entire context within which these statements were written.
That's why we had no problem reposting such things as the entire post in which you talked
about 'the beautiful dream' of Naziism, and leaving in *everything* that you said, which
only made you look even more foolish. You can whine pitifully all you want to, but readers
of this thread can track these backwards to see for themselves the total context, and to
observe previous examples of you wiping egg from your face.
Nobody said that it was, moron. The hyperlink was to a newpaper article in which the murder
used the same logic that you use in justifying the murder of a black man in Denver. Good God
in heaven, do you realize how stupid your statement above sounds? ROTFL!
> >
> > In case it has not occured to you, arguments to 'take out the enemy before they take
> > you out' is the logic of terrorists and murderers.
>
> It also happens to be the logic of conventional warfare and has been since the
> Paleolithic. Do you disagree?
>
I most certainly disagree. Ever taken a sociology of war course? Have you ever read Von
Claueswitz or even Sun Tzu? Warfare, even as examined by anthropologists among stone-age
peoples fighting each other, rarely has resulted in the murder of non-combatants prior to
modern times and massacres of enemy populations are easily the exception rather than the
rule. Ancient armies as well as medieval armies were almost always bound by codes of
chivalry and even in the middle ages non-combatants were rarely harmed while 'professional'
soldiers by and large duked it out on the battlefield. Hell, the public was rarely if ever
involved in warfare directly until Napoleon's levee en masse.
So before you spout off nonsense which is easily refuted, you might want to actually pick up
a history book sometime before putting your foot in your mouth. It comes as no surprise to
anyone that you seem to desperately find justification for the murder of non-combatants,
such as the Nazis did and such as their adherants today seek to do, which has been denounced
by civilized nations everywhere.
> > And you wonder why people go out
> > of their way to tear you a new asshole on the internet. The above is a recent
> > example of that logic in action and is hardly a unique case. You would only do
> > yourself a favor by discarding that publicly, privately, and in your heart.
> >
>
> No. The consequence would be to put oneself at a grave disadvantage in any armed
> conflict. I should emphasize that what I'm saying here is not particularly radical. It
> is the philosophy of pretty much every army on earth.
>
That is a lie. The Nazis engaged wholeheartedly in the organized murder of non-combatants
even before the outbreak of war using the justification that the Jews were enemies. The
British did not. The French did not. The Americans did not. The Rummel article I cited
previously established pretty firmly with empirical evidence that most armed forces,
especially those of democracies, *do not* engage in such organized and premeditated murder,
while the exceptions are monstrous regimes like the Nazis and the Soviets.
Caught in yet another lie, Führer Cuddles? What a shock!
>
> >
> > If it came down to a case where you were making threats of the kind made against
> > Yale Edeiken or Andrew Skolnick, however, computer professionals can easily be
> > enlisted to track down the source of such terrorist threats as you know. So there is
> > really nothing to fear from you taking on an alias whether you intend to simply hide
> > your identity or even if you use it to threaten and harass.
> >
>
> I have no wish to harass anyone, Tim. While you folks are posting here you are just
> making yourselves look like dishonest twits. Why should I wish to discourage you from
> doing that? Those people who do resort to such tactics are no better, in my view, than
> you, Skolnick and Edeiken. It's the same sort of mentality in each case.
>
By asking you again and again to forsake your support for a murderous ideology? We have
given you ample chance to save face even while you continue to evade the denunciation of the
murder of innocent people. Or do you call it dishonesty when we juxtapose two statements
that you have made which directly contradict each other? Or present mountains of evidence,
including hyperlinks, which you have avoided at least twice in the last three months? Or
question your professed criticism of the Nazis for being based upon their 'inefficiency'
while urging the reader to 'ignore the corpses' of those murdered in cold blood from the
Nazis.
You really are clueless, aren't you? All that needs to be done to establish who seems to
have grown donkey ears and a tail is to simply do the mathematics in counting the numbers of
people who have weighed in with an opinion on your posts. If that were used as the criterion
for judging a boxing match, the fight would have been stopped several rounds ago so that you
could have been taken to the hospital.
>
> >
> > But you could also save face and start over again, this time choosing to act and
> > behave in a civilized manner and dropping your hatred and anti-semitism.
>
> I've told you that I don't particularly hate anyone. As for 'anti-semitism' -- I'm quite
> happy to do my bit to get on well with any Jewish person.
They must surely love your ' I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi
stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet --
they are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people.' line. Gee, by your logic, if they get
offended by this line, it must be their fault because they don't have a sense of humor.
Would I be too far off the mark in guessing that you have not been invited to many Bar
Mitzvahs lately?
> The problem is that, whenever
> I've tried it in the past, I've invariably ended up disappointed at best and ripped of
> at worst. (Actually there are a couple of exceptions.) The sort of anti-semitism you
> seem to have in mind is a rabid loathing of all things Jewish. I don't feel that. I just
> feel pissed off that, however decent and fair I try to be, these people invariably seem
> to let me down. I attribute it to a culture of 'machismo'.
>
Wow, I must have been psychic in predicting that you would find a way to blame Jews for the
fact that they actually dislike your characterizations of them. Should I contact Randi now?
Here's a radical thought - brace yourself, because I know that this *might* bowl you over.
You *could* treat Jewish people as the individuals that they are rather than as
representatives of some imagined 'enemy' group. You *might* find, if you were to deep-six
your preconceived prejudices, that they are pretty much like everybody else as I have
certainly found.
> > No one will
> > mind and no one will be the wiser. You might actually be able to make some friends
> > that way. If you simply want to fall into your old patterns of making personal
> > attacks and using evasive and dishonest srguments, you will be spotted as quickly as
> > Giwer has been in his resort to changing identities.
> >
>
> If one uses a different computer, ISP, and style, and posts in different places, that is
> quite unlikely. However, it is not a strategy I intend to pursue.
>
Then your reason for bringing this up is? ........
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
> David E Michael wrote:
>
> > Tim Stevens wrote:
> >
> > > David E Michael wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire kingdom, Tim,
> > > > I would use one of the other computers, a false user ID, and quite probably a
> > > > different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But you don't have the intelligence to
> > > > think of that do you, Tim? All you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it
> > > > Tim?
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > > Big Deal. Go ahead and do it. I know of several people who do that all the time.
> > > Your Nazi buddies Giwer and Tavish immediately come to mind. Your alias would spout
> > > forth the same hatred and would be attacked for the same hatred whether you
> > > represent yourself as David Michael or Groucho Marx or Adolf Hitler. You would
> > > likely not be attacked if you did not spout forth statements such as have been cited
> > > repeatedly against you.
> > >
> >
> > You are under the mistaken impression that I don't enjoy being attacked, Tim. You folks
> > do it so badly that the sort of people whom I wish to influence would immediately
> > dismiss your attacks as the rantings of a complete nitwit.
> >
>
> [Slapping forehead] Oh, that's right. So *that's* why so many of your many 'supporters' have
> valiantly rushed to your defense. How careless of me not to have seen this 'silent
> majority'.
>
Tim, of all the hundreds of millions of Internet users in the world, the only ones who have
rushed to your defence are the usual three or four trolls who bash me whatever I say.
>
> Thank you ever so much for clarifying 'the type of people whom I wish to influence' for the
> readers of this thread, by the way. Since you did not denounce the logic of the Nazi boy
> Thill as cited below, but in fact went out of your way to justify the logic that he used in
> the murder of a black man by stating 'It also happens to be the logic of conventional
> warfare and has been since the Paleolithic. Do you disagree?', just as you have justified
> the Nazis murder of communists and later Jews who after all were seen as enemies by the
> Nazis,
False.
> you indict yourself as an accessory to murder.
False again.
> It must be people like Thill that you
> are trying to influence, wouldn't you say?
Well if I can influence them into a less destructive and more productive mode of behaviour would
that not be a good thing?
>
> >
> > The statements in question are invariably cited out of context and in a way that makes
> > it seem, to those who have not been following the arguments, that I'm saying the
> > opposite to what I was actually saying. That is dishonest and will be recognized as such
> > by anyone of value.
> >
>
> Wrong again, Herr Cuddles.
Right again, Tim.
> People who have cited the oft-repeated statements have gone out
> of their way to include the entire context within which these statements were written.
> That's why we had no problem reposting such things as the entire post in which you talked
> about 'the beautiful dream' of Naziism, and leaving in *everything* that you said, which
> only made you look even more foolish. You can whine pitifully all you want to, but readers
> of this thread can track these backwards to see for themselves the total context, and to
> observe previous examples of you wiping egg from your face.
I have no objection to you citing my words. I *do* object to you being dishonest about them,
even when such dishonesty is advanced as 'irony'.
Do you realize how stupid most of your posts sound?
>
> > >
> > > In case it has not occured to you, arguments to 'take out the enemy before they take
> > > you out' is the logic of terrorists and murderers.
> >
> > It also happens to be the logic of conventional warfare and has been since the
> > Paleolithic. Do you disagree?
> >
>
> I most certainly disagree. Ever taken a sociology of war course?
Nope, but I have some experience of the field.
> Have you ever read Von
> Claueswitz or even Sun Tzu?
Not only that but I have read Professor Handel's excellent discussion of those works. Have you?
> Warfare, even as examined by anthropologists among stone-age
> peoples fighting each other,
Tim, you are talking utter nonsense. How would an anthropologist study stone-age peoples
fighting each other? Would he perchance get into a time machine and go back 10000 years? I put
it to you that the stone age is the province of the archaeologist, not the anthropologist. I
further put it to you that, since you are evidently ignorant of this fact, it is quite likely
that your comment below is based on the fevered overheating of your imagination.
> rarely has resulted in the murder of non-combatants prior to
> modern times and massacres of enemy populations are easily the exception rather than the
> rule.
This is interesting. The point that I made was actually that it is a characteristic of warfare
that you try to kill the enemy before he kills you, not that you try to murder non-combatants.
Are you seriously advancing the thesis that in, for example, the Napoleonic wars, each side
tried each and every soldier before deciding whether to kill him?
> Ancient armies as well as medieval armies were almost always bound by codes of
> chivalry and even in the middle ages non-combatants were rarely harmed while 'professional'
> soldiers by and large duked it out on the battlefield. Hell, the public was rarely if ever
> involved in warfare directly until Napoleon's levee en masse.
Again, you're attacking a point that I have never made. The point that I made was that it has
been a characteristic of warfare since recorded history began that you attempt to kill the enemy
before the enemy kills you. I ask you again: do you agree or disagree?
>
> So before you spout off nonsense which is easily refuted, you might want to actually pick up
> a history book sometime before putting your foot in your mouth.
As you have done above?
> It comes as no surprise to
> anyone that you seem to desperately find justification for the murder of non-combatants,
> such as the Nazis did and such as their adherants today seek to do, which has been denounced
> by civilized nations everywhere.
Once again, you are attributing to me views that I do not hold. And I should point out that the
'civilized nations everywhere' evidently did not include the Allies, who firebombed and nuclear
bombed entire cities full of civilians.
>
> > > And you wonder why people go out
> > > of their way to tear you a new asshole on the internet. The above is a recent
> > > example of that logic in action and is hardly a unique case. You would only do
> > > yourself a favor by discarding that publicly, privately, and in your heart.
> > >
> >
> > No. The consequence would be to put oneself at a grave disadvantage in any armed
> > conflict. I should emphasize that what I'm saying here is not particularly radical. It
> > is the philosophy of pretty much every army on earth.
> >
>
> That is a lie.
Utter rubbish. Can you name any army in the world that has an operational policy of not killing
the enemy soldiers until the enemy soldiers in question have been found guilty of some crime? I
put it to you again that in every army on earth, there is a general acceptance that 'you kill
them before they kill you'.
> The Nazis engaged wholeheartedly in the organized murder of non-combatants
> even before the outbreak of war
So did the Russians and the British. So what?
> using the justification that the Jews were enemies.
That was clearly their view.
> The
> British did not.
Tell that to the Afrikaners.
> The French did not.
Tell that to the people in their colonies.
> The Americans did not.
But they made up for it when they bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> The Rummel article I cited
> previously established pretty firmly with empirical evidence that most armed forces,
> especially those of democracies, *do not* engage in such organized and premeditated murder,
> while the exceptions are monstrous regimes like the Nazis and the Soviets.
You are wrongly assuming that I haven't read Rummel. Rummel is concerned only with 'democide'
and does not address armed conflict. The armies of democracies *do* engage in organized and
premediated murder. They did so throughtout the last century, and they did so to a horrific
degree in the Second World War.
>
> Caught in yet another lie, Führer Cuddles? What a shock!
I fear you have been.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If it came down to a case where you were making threats of the kind made against
> > > Yale Edeiken or Andrew Skolnick, however, computer professionals can easily be
> > > enlisted to track down the source of such terrorist threats as you know. So there is
> > > really nothing to fear from you taking on an alias whether you intend to simply hide
> > > your identity or even if you use it to threaten and harass.
> > >
> >
> > I have no wish to harass anyone, Tim. While you folks are posting here you are just
> > making yourselves look like dishonest twits. Why should I wish to discourage you from
> > doing that? Those people who do resort to such tactics are no better, in my view, than
> > you, Skolnick and Edeiken. It's the same sort of mentality in each case.
> >
>
> By asking you again and again to forsake your support for a murderous ideology? We have
> given you ample chance to save face
Tim, I am not interested in saving face. I am interested in showing that anti-revisionist
posters are largely (but not entirely) dishonest and hypocritical.
> even while you continue to evade the denunciation of the
> murder of innocent people.
I denounce the murder of innocent people, except in a few very exceptional circumstances.
> Or do you call it dishonesty when we juxtapose two statements
> that you have made which directly contradict each other?
Nope, so long as you do it honestly.
> Or present mountains of evidence,
> including hyperlinks, which you have avoided at least twice in the last three months?
Nope, so long as you do it fairly.
> Or
> question your professed criticism of the Nazis for being based upon their 'inefficiency'
> while urging the reader to 'ignore the corpses' of those murdered in cold blood from the
> Nazis.
Question away.
>
> You really are clueless, aren't you?
Nope.
> All that needs to be done to establish who seems to
> have grown donkey ears and a tail is to simply do the mathematics in counting the numbers of
> people who have weighed in with an opinion on your posts.
More dishonesty from Tim. That statement is palpably false.
> If that were used as the criterion
> for judging a boxing match, the fight would have been stopped several rounds ago so that you
> could have been taken to the hospital.
I'd say the quality of the argument is a better criterion.
>
> >
> > >
> > > But you could also save face and start over again, this time choosing to act and
> > > behave in a civilized manner and dropping your hatred and anti-semitism.
> >
> > I've told you that I don't particularly hate anyone. As for 'anti-semitism' -- I'm quite
> > happy to do my bit to get on well with any Jewish person.
>
> They must surely love your ' I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi
> stereotype of the Jews seems to be....I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet --
> they are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people.' line. Gee, by your logic, if they get
> offended by this line, it must be their fault because they don't have a sense of humor.
>
You're putting the cart before the horse. I only formulated the view stated above *after* being
nice to Jewish people.
>
> Would I be too far off the mark in guessing that you have not been invited to many Bar
> Mitzvahs lately?
Nope.
>
> > The problem is that, whenever
> > I've tried it in the past, I've invariably ended up disappointed at best and ripped of
> > at worst. (Actually there are a couple of exceptions.) The sort of anti-semitism you
> > seem to have in mind is a rabid loathing of all things Jewish. I don't feel that. I just
> > feel pissed off that, however decent and fair I try to be, these people invariably seem
> > to let me down. I attribute it to a culture of 'machismo'.
> >
>
> Wow, I must have been psychic in predicting that you would find a way to blame Jews for the
> fact that they actually dislike your characterizations of them. Should I contact Randi now?
>
Who is Randi?
>
> Here's a radical thought - brace yourself, because I know that this *might* bowl you over.
> You *could* treat Jewish people as the individuals that they are rather than as
> representatives of some imagined 'enemy' group.
I've tried it.
It doesn't work.
> You *might* find, if you were to deep-six
> your preconceived prejudices, that they are pretty much like everybody else as I have
> certainly found.
I've been trying it for years. Trust me -- it hasn't worked.
>
> > > No one will
> > > mind and no one will be the wiser. You might actually be able to make some friends
> > > that way. If you simply want to fall into your old patterns of making personal
> > > attacks and using evasive and dishonest srguments, you will be spotted as quickly as
> > > Giwer has been in his resort to changing identities.
> > >
> >
> > If one uses a different computer, ISP, and style, and posts in different places, that is
> > quite unlikely. However, it is not a strategy I intend to pursue.
> >
>
> Then your reason for bringing this up is? ........
>
You started the topic, not I.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The choice is yours.
>
> --
> - Tim
>
> ******* Aspera ad Astra *******
David
Tim Stevens
Suuuure, Führer Cuddles. In addition to Andrew Skolnick, Yale Edeiken, John Morris, taking you to
task, there has also been Phillip Matthews, Sara Salzman, Buck Turgidson, Avital Pilpel, Steve Wolk,
Hob Gadling, Pgroff, William Daffer, Hillary Ostrov, PZ Myers, David Christian, Joel, Rosenberg, and
Gord McFee for starters. Now please, humor us all. Will you now rewrite mathematics in addition to
history and insist that this constitutes the 'usual three or four trolls who bash me whatever I
say'? We have all taken turns kicking your ass. Or has Giwer's sterno affected your reading ability
in addition to your mathematical ability?
>
> >
> > Thank you ever so much for clarifying 'the type of people whom I wish to influence' for the
> > readers of this thread, by the way. Since you did not denounce the logic of the Nazi boy
> > Thill as cited below, but in fact went out of your way to justify the logic that he used in
> > the murder of a black man by stating 'It also happens to be the logic of conventional
> > warfare and has been since the Paleolithic. Do you disagree?', just as you have justified
> > the Nazis murder of communists and later Jews who after all were seen as enemies by the
> > Nazis,
>
> False.
>
Here are your own words, once again:
"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with communists. They hanged them, shot
them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in so doing they have my complete support."
And your 'explanation':
"Point dealt with many times before. In the 1930s, the communists were engaged in a bloody war
against the non-communist world. In Russia, millions were dying. The evil of communism was poised to
spread across the earth. In a war, you
kill the enemy before it kills you."
You're arguing with yourself again, Herr Cuddles, especially since you were given the chance to
repudiate this publically especially as applied to non-combatants. You have steadfastly avoided it
like the plague.
Oh Cuddles, you have some 'splaining to do!
>
> > you indict yourself as an accessory to murder.
>
> False again.
>
True again. When you rationalize the murder of innocents, you aid and abet those you those whose
follow through on the ideology to its logical conclusion.
>
> > It must be people like Thill that you
> > are trying to influence, wouldn't you say?
>
> Well if I can influence them into a less destructive and more productive mode of behaviour would
> that not be a good thing?
>
Supporting their reasons for killing non-Aryans is not a very effective strategy for curbing such
violence, wouldn't you say? Funny, but publically advocating 'killing enemies before they kill us'
is not likely to induce restraint. Or will you now attempt to rewrite psychology as well?
>
> >
> > >
> > > The statements in question are invariably cited out of context and in a way that makes
> > > it seem, to those who have not been following the arguments, that I'm saying the
> > > opposite to what I was actually saying. That is dishonest and will be recognized as such
> > > by anyone of value.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong again, Herr Cuddles.
>
> Right again, Tim.
>
As stated below the context has been consistently provided. Do squirm some more for the audience,
Herr Cuddles.
>
> > People who have cited the oft-repeated statements have gone out
> > of their way to include the entire context within which these statements were written.
> > That's why we had no problem reposting such things as the entire post in which you talked
> > about 'the beautiful dream' of Naziism, and leaving in *everything* that you said, which
> > only made you look even more foolish. You can whine pitifully all you want to, but readers
> > of this thread can track these backwards to see for themselves the total context, and to
> > observe previous examples of you wiping egg from your face.
>
> I have no objection to you citing my words. I *do* object to you being dishonest about them,
> even when such dishonesty is advanced as 'irony'.
>
Your words speak for themselves and have been left intact. I have advanced my own opinions of what
these words mean in their context, which others have agreed with. If you cannot deal with someone
taking you to task for what your words clearly say to considerably more than just 'three or four
people' then take off.
Only to you, Führer Cuddles.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > In case it has not occured to you, arguments to 'take out the enemy before they take
> > > > you out' is the logic of terrorists and murderers.
> > >
> > > It also happens to be the logic of conventional warfare and has been since the
> > > Paleolithic. Do you disagree?
> > >
> >
> > I most certainly disagree. Ever taken a sociology of war course?
>
> Nope, but I have some experience of the field.
>
It has not shown.
>
> > Have you ever read Von
> > Claueswitz or even Sun Tzu?
>
> Not only that but I have read Professor Handel's excellent discussion of those works. Have you?
>
> > Warfare, even as examined by anthropologists among stone-age
> > peoples fighting each other,
>
> Tim, you are talking utter nonsense. How would an anthropologist study stone-age peoples
> fighting each other? Would he perchance get into a time machine and go back 10000 years? I put
> it to you that the stone age is the province of the archaeologist, not the anthropologist. I
> further put it to you that, since you are evidently ignorant of this fact, it is quite likely
> that your comment below is based on the fevered overheating of your imagination.
Moron, the reference is to stone age people such as the Yanomamo who are found in such remote places
as New Guinea and the jungles of South America. Get your head out of your ass and work it out for
yourself.
> > rarely has resulted in the murder of non-combatants prior to
> > modern times and massacres of enemy populations are easily the exception rather than the
> > rule.
>
> This is interesting. The point that I made was actually that it is a characteristic of warfare
> that you try to kill the enemy before he kills you, not that you try to murder non-combatants.
> Are you seriously advancing the thesis that in, for example, the Napoleonic wars, each side
> tried each and every soldier before deciding whether to kill him?
>
And the point you have been questioned on repeatedly and which you have avoided is your application
of that 'principle' to *non-combatants*, including women and children. You have time and again
justified this with respect to the communists in Germany who did not constitute armed opposition and
you have been markedly silent when it was noted that this same principle was applied to the Jews.
>
> > Ancient armies as well as medieval armies were almost always bound by codes of
> > chivalry and even in the middle ages non-combatants were rarely harmed while 'professional'
> > soldiers by and large duked it out on the battlefield. Hell, the public was rarely if ever
> > involved in warfare directly until Napoleon's levee en masse.
>
> Again, you're attacking a point that I have never made. The point that I made was that it has
> been a characteristic of warfare since recorded history began that you attempt to kill the enemy
> before the enemy kills you. I ask you again: do you agree or disagree?
>
You were asked about how that applied to non-combatants, especially as the Nazis considered
communists and Jews 'the enemy' even while they did nothing wrong. You have avoided answering that
question. Until you do, that is the point which is in question.
Well?
[snip of remainder of Cuddle's dishonesty until later]
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
> > Tim, of all the hundreds of millions of Internet users in the world, the only ones who have
> > rushed to your defence are the usual three or four trolls who bash me whatever I say.
> >
>
> Suuuure, Führer Cuddles. In addition to Andrew Skolnick, Yale Edeiken, John Morris, taking you
> to
> task, there has also been Phillip Matthews, Sara Salzman, Buck Turgidson, Avital Pilpel, Steve
> Wolk,
> Hob Gadling, Pgroff, William Daffer, Hillary Ostrov, PZ Myers, David Christian, Joel,
> Rosenberg, and
> Gord McFee for starters.
I saw them posting in this newsgroup and possibly this thread. I did not see them 'rushing'
to 'your defence'.
> Now please, humor us all. Will you now rewrite mathematics in addition to
> history and insist that this constitutes the 'usual three or four trolls who bash me
> whatever I
> say'? We have all taken turns kicking your ass. Or has Giwer's sterno affected your reading
> ability
> in addition to your mathematical ability?
>
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you ever so much for clarifying 'the type of people whom I wish to influence' for
> the
> > > readers of this thread, by the way. Since you did not denounce the logic of the Nazi boy
> > > Thill as cited below, but in fact went out of your way to justify the logic that he used
> in
> > > the murder of a black man by stating 'It also happens to be the logic of conventional
> > > warfare and has been since the Paleolithic. Do you disagree?', just as you have justified
> > > the Nazis murder of communists and later Jews who after all were seen as enemies by the
> > > Nazis,
> >
> > False.
> >
>
> Here are your own words, once again:
> "the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
> shot
> them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in so doing they have my complete support."
>
> And your 'explanation':
>
And *your* explanation for your assertion that I have defended the murder of Jews?
>
> "Point dealt with many times before. In the 1930s, the communists were engaged in a bloody war
>
> against the non-communist world. In Russia, millions were dying. The evil of communism was
> poised to
> spread across the earth. In a war, you
> kill the enemy before it kills you."
>
> You're arguing with yourself again, Herr Cuddles, especially since you were given the chance
> to
> repudiate this publically especially as applied to non-combatants. You have steadfastly
> avoided it
> like the plague.
>
> Oh Cuddles, you have some 'splaining to do!
>
And your explanation for your lie that I have defended the murder of Jews?
>
> >
> > > you indict yourself as an accessory to murder.
> >
> > False again.
> >
>
> True again. When you rationalize the murder of innocents, you aid and abet those
> you those whose
> follow through on the ideology to its logical conclusion.
I do not justify the murder of innocents.
>
> >
> > > It must be people like Thill that you
> > > are trying to influence, wouldn't you say?
> >
> > Well if I can influence them into a less destructive and more productive mode of behaviour
> would
> > that not be a good thing?
> >
>
> Supporting their reasons for killing non-Aryans is not a very effective strategy for curbing
> such
> violence, wouldn't you say? Funny, but publically advocating 'killing enemies before they kill
> us'
> is not likely to induce restraint. Or will you now attempt to rewrite psychology as well?
>
I'd say that trying to influence the loonies and nutters to take a more productive and
less brutal approach is performing a very good public service, Tim. Do you disagree?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The statements in question are invariably cited out of context and in a way that makes
> > > > it seem, to those who have not been following the arguments, that I'm saying the
> > > > opposite to what I was actually saying. That is dishonest and will be recognized as such
>
> > > > by anyone of value.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wrong again, Herr Cuddles.
> >
> > Right again, Tim.
> >
>
> As stated below the context has been consistently provided. Do squirm some more for the
> audience,
> Herr Cuddles.
>
The context has not been provided in all cases, Tim. Remember your posts in which you attempted
'irony'?
>
> >
> > > People who have cited the oft-repeated statements have gone out
> > > of their way to include the entire context within which these statements were written.
> > > That's why we had no problem reposting such things as the entire post in which you talked
> > > about 'the beautiful dream' of Naziism, and leaving in *everything* that you said, which
> > > only made you look even more foolish. You can whine pitifully all you want to, but readers
>
> > > of this thread can track these backwards to see for themselves the total context, and to
> > > observe previous examples of you wiping egg from your face.
> >
> > I have no objection to you citing my words. I *do* object to you being dishonest about them,
>
> > even when such dishonesty is advanced as 'irony'.
> >
>
> Your words speak for themselves and have been left intact. I have advanced my own opinions of
> what
> these words mean in their context, which others have agreed with. If you cannot deal with
> someone
> taking you to task for what your words clearly say to considerably more than just 'three or
> four
> people' then take off.
>
I can deal with your lies and smears quite effectively by calling them whenever you post them,
Tim.
> > > > > Juror Withrow said she had no doubt that Thill had deliberately gone the night of
> > > > > the crime looking for people of color to hunt down. In addition to shooting Dia,
> > > > > prosecutors said, Thill also beat up a Hispanic man and tried to kill another black
> > > > > man."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That was certainly not a citation from me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nobody said that it was, moron. The hyperlink was to a newpaper article in which the
> murder
> > > used the same logic that you use in justifying the murder of a black man in Denver. Good
> God
> > > in heaven, do you realize how stupid your statement above sounds? ROTFL!
> > >
> >
> > Do you realize how stupid most of your posts sound?
> >
>
> Only to you, Führer Cuddles.
>
How do you know, Tim? Ah . . . it's another example of your general approach to life: 'if
it sounds good, say it and bugger whether it's true.'
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In case it has not occured to you, arguments to 'take out the enemy before they take
> > > > > you out' is the logic of terrorists and murderers.
> > > >
> > > > It also happens to be the logic of conventional warfare and has been since the
> > > > Paleolithic. Do you disagree?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I most certainly disagree. Ever taken a sociology of war course?
> >
> > Nope, but I have some experience of the field.
> >
>
> It has not shown.
>
See below.
>
> >
> > > Have you ever read Von
> > > Claueswitz or even Sun Tzu?
> >
> > Not only that but I have read Professor Handel's excellent discussion of those works. Have
> you?
No answer?
I take it that's a 'no'.
>
> > > Warfare, even as examined by anthropologists among stone-age
> > > peoples fighting each other,
> >
> > Tim, you are talking utter nonsense. How would an anthropologist study stone-age peoples
> > fighting each other? Would he perchance get into a time machine and go back 10000 years? I
> put
> > it to you that the stone age is the province of the archaeologist, not the anthropologist. I
>
> > further put it to you that, since you are evidently ignorant of this fact, it is quite
> likely
> > that your comment below is based on the fevered overheating of your imagination.
>
> Moron, the reference is to stone age people such as the Yanomamo who are found in such remote
> places
> as New Guinea and the jungles of South America. Get your head out of your ass and work it out
> for
> yourself.
>
Are you talking about the Yanomamo now or the Yanomamo in the Stone Age, Tim? I
ask because there seems to be an interesting assumption that the Yanomamo now behave
the same as the Yanomamo in the Stone Age. Do you have any evidence for this assumption, Tim?
>
> > > rarely has resulted in the murder of non-combatants prior to
> > > modern times and massacres of enemy populations are easily the exception rather than the
> > > rule.
> >
> > This is interesting. The point that I made was actually that it is a characteristic of
> warfare
> > that you try to kill the enemy before he kills you, not that you try to murder
> non-combatants.
> > Are you seriously advancing the thesis that in, for example, the Napoleonic wars, each side
> > tried each and every soldier before deciding whether to kill him?
> >
>
> And the point you have been questioned on repeatedly and which you have avoided is your
> application
> of that 'principle' to *non-combatants*, including women and children.
And the point that I have repeatedly made to you was that communists *were*
combatants in a war in 1930. For the record, I certainly do not support the killing of non
combatants -- unlike those good democrats who dropped bombs on, inter alia, 50% of
the built-up area of Germany, Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Tokyo.
> You have time and again
> justified this with respect to the communists in Germany who did not constitute armed
> opposition
Rubbish.
> and
> you have been markedly silent when it was noted that this same principle was applied to the
> Jews.
I contest that this same principle was applied to the Jews.
>
> >
> > > Ancient armies as well as medieval armies were almost always bound by codes of
> > > chivalry and even in the middle ages non-combatants were rarely harmed while
> 'professional'
> > > soldiers by and large duked it out on the battlefield. Hell, the public was rarely if ever
>
> > > involved in warfare directly until Napoleon's levee en masse.
> >
> > Again, you're attacking a point that I have never made. The point that I made was that it
> has
> > been a characteristic of warfare since recorded history began that you attempt to kill the
> enemy
> > before the enemy kills you. I ask you again: do you agree or disagree?
> >
>
> You were asked about how that applied to non-combatants, especially as the Nazis considered
> communists and Jews 'the enemy' even while they did nothing wrong.
And I have repeatedly told you that I regard communists in the 1930s as very much
combatants. And the Nazis dealt with them appropriately.
> You have avoided answering that
> question. Until you do, that is the point which is in question.
>
> Well?
>
See above.
>
> [snip of remainder of Cuddle's dishonesty until later]
>
> --
> - Tim
>
> ******* Aspera ad Astra *******
David
PS -- I've had to attach this to the wrong part of the thread because when I tried to reply
directly to the post in question I got an error message: 'Error: line 8 too long'.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <384BA405...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 06
Dec 1999 11:54:45 +0000, David E Michael
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire
>kingdom, Tim, I would use one of the other computers, a false user
>ID, and quite probably a different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But
>you don't have the intelligence to think of that do you, Tim? All
>you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it Tim?
You mean you'd do something like call yourself "Cuddles" and get an
account at demon.co.uk?
Yeah, we'd never figure that out in a million years.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOEw5n5QgvG272fn9EQID4gCfSp6z3poHVMZiowKkfGyQTkMsQegAniVm
3U3DpRbBqztEEMpueYyQYLA4
=+SJ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Orac
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire kingdom,
>Tim, I would use one of the other computers, a false user ID, and quite
>probably a different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But you don't have the
>intelligence to think of that do you, Tim? All you can do is call names and
>tell lies, isn't it Tim?
LOL1 And doing that works soooooo well to hide one's identity, as we have seen
with Giwer, Bellinger, and Bradbury, eh?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
a.k.a. |
David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:16:10 +0000 c.e., David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
> >And *your* explanation for your assertion that I have defended the murder of Jews?
> Sigh, nazis just don't get it. Defending the national socialist state that
> existed in Germany is de facto defense of the murder of Jews.
Now Mr. Christian, don't go putting words in Herr Cuddles'
mouth.
Nazis didn't murder Jews. No. They killed their "enemies."
And, as Herr Doktor Cuddles recently instructed us, an
"enemy" is an "it." Killing an "it" is not murder, it is
"self defense."
The death of 6 million Jews was no one's fault but their
own. If you become an enemy of the Nazis, you should expect
to be killed. Right Herr Cuddles?
Herr Cuddles says you've got to kill an "it" before "it" can
kill you. The rule is as old as humankind, he says.
Well, Herr Cuddles, here is something for you to think
about:
You are my enemy. And you are an evil (sh)it. Should I
practice what you preach?
Don't wet your pants, Cuddles. I would never take a life
except in self-defense. And fortunately for you, I don't go
by your twisted definition of self-defense.
-- Andrew Skolnick
Tim Stevens
news:384C6E83...@stopNazi.spam.mindspring.com...
> David Christian wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:16:10 +0000 c.e., David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
>
>
> > >And *your* explanation for your assertion that I have defended the
murder of Jews?
>
that
> > existed in Germany is de facto defense of the murder of Jews.
>
>
> Now Mr. Christian, don't go putting words in Herr Cuddles'
> mouth.
>
> Nazis didn't murder Jews. No. They killed their "enemies."
> And, as Herr Doktor Cuddles recently instructed us, an
> "enemy" is an "it." Killing an "it" is not murder, it is
> "self defense."
Oh, and you forgot: it has been an accepted practice of warfare to 'kill the
enemy before they kill you'. Those loopy Nazis were only acting in self
defense when they sent those heroic Einsatzgruppen trooping across Eastern
Europe and Russia to hunt down all of those evil Jewish two-year olds lest
they harm the 'pure Aryan race' by waving their toys at them. After all, as
Einsatzführer Cuddles informed us, such is an accepted practice of
militaries everywhere.
> The death of 6 million Jews was no one's fault but their
> own. If you become an enemy of the Nazis, you should expect
> to be killed. Right Herr Cuddles?
After all, Buford Furrow, Benjamin Smith, and those heroic skinheads with
ties to the BNP who recently committed terrorist acts against gays and
foreigners were only acting heroically in self-defense to kill the enemy
before they could kill them. But remember now, Andrew; Cuddles *condemned*
these actions. They are, after all, inefficient.
> Herr Cuddles says you've got to kill an "it" before "it" can
> kill you. The rule is as old as humankind, he says.
>
> Well, Herr Cuddles, here is something for you to think
> about:
>
> You are my enemy. And you are an evil (sh)it. Should I
> practice what you preach?
Cuddles just doesn't get it, Andrew. When given a chance to clarify his
statement or denounce it for the evil it is, he has stubbornly maintained
the right of neo-Nazis like him to 'kill enemies before they kill him' even
if they have no intention of doing so. How convenient it is for him to let
others practice what he preaches. What he doesn't seem to get is that if his
words are found prominently on the computer of someone who has acted upon
his 'sermon', he can legitimately be charged as an accessory to that crime.
> Don't wet your pants, Cuddles. I would never take a life
> except in self-defense. And fortunately for you, I don't go
> by your twisted definition of self-defense.
--
Tim Stevens
>
>
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In <384BA405...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 06
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire
> > >kingdom, Tim, I would use one of the other computers, a false user
> > >ID, and quite probably a different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But
> > >you don't have the intelligence to think of that do you, Tim? All
> > >you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it Tim?
> >
> > account at demon.co.uk?
> >
> > Yeah, we'd never figure that out in a million years.
> >
>
> poster.
Great! We look forward to your 'conversion' and to the work you can offer in
helping to undo some of the damage your hatred has done.
Welcome aboard. If you are good for a long period of time, we might even
sign you up for your first set of 14 carat gold ZOG cufflinks. [snicker]
David Christian
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > [Slapping forehead] Oh, that's right. So *that's* why so many of your many 'supporters'
>> have
>> > > valiantly rushed to your defense. How careless of me not to have seen this 'silent
>> > > majority'.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Tim, of all the hundreds of millions of Internet users in the world, the only ones who have
>> > rushed to your defence are the usual three or four trolls who bash me whatever I say.
>> >
And where, Cuddles, are the hundreds of millions of internet users who
support your positions and provide evidence for you? HINT,Tavish doesn't
count.
Sigh, nazis just don't get it. Defending the national socialist state that
existed in Germany is de facto defense of the murder of Jews.
>
>>
>> "Point dealt with many times before. In the 1930s, the communists were engaged in a bloody war
>>
>> against the non-communist world. In Russia, millions were dying. The evil of communism was
>> poised to
>> spread across the earth. In a war, you
>> kill the enemy before it kills you."
>>
>> You're arguing with yourself again, Herr Cuddles, especially since you were given the chance
>> to
>> repudiate this publically especially as applied to non-combatants. You have steadfastly
>> avoided it
>> like the plague.
>>
>> Oh Cuddles, you have some 'splaining to do!
>>
>
>And your explanation for your lie that I have defended the murder of Jews?
Defense of national socialism is defense of the murder of Jews. QED, as the
math folks say.
>
>>
>> >
>> > > you indict yourself as an accessory to murder.
>> >
>> > False again.
>> >
>>
>> True again. When you rationalize the murder of innocents, you aid and abet those
>
>> you those whose
>> follow through on the ideology to its logical conclusion.
>
>I do not justify the murder of innocents.
>
>>
>> >
>> > > It must be people like Thill that you
>> > > are trying to influence, wouldn't you say?
>> >
>> > Well if I can influence them into a less destructive and more productive mode of behaviour
>> would
>> > that not be a good thing?
A more productive fascism is still fascism. Care to comment on
Searchlight's allegation that "What was certain was that every man
on the party's top table was a convicted criminal. Welcome to the party of
"law and order"."
http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk/stories/bnp_annrally.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
Alexander Berkman
David E Michael
David Christian wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:16:10 +0000 c.e., David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [Slapping forehead] Oh, that's right. So *that's* why so many of your many 'supporters'
> >> have
> >> > > valiantly rushed to your defense. How careless of me not to have seen this 'silent
> >> > > majority'.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Tim, of all the hundreds of millions of Internet users in the world, the only ones who have
> >> > rushed to your defence are the usual three or four trolls who bash me whatever I say.
> >> >
>
> And where, Cuddles, are the hundreds of millions of internet users who
> support your positions and provide evidence for you? HINT,Tavish doesn't
> count.
> >>
> Sigh, nazis just don't get it. Defending the national socialist state that
> existed in Germany is de facto defense of the murder of Jews.
> >
> >>
> >> "Point dealt with many times before. In the 1930s, the communists were engaged in a bloody war
> >>
> >> against the non-communist world. In Russia, millions were dying. The evil of communism was
> >> poised to
> >> spread across the earth. In a war, you
> >> kill the enemy before it kills you."
> >>
> >> You're arguing with yourself again, Herr Cuddles, especially since you were given the chance
> >> to
> >> repudiate this publically especially as applied to non-combatants. You have steadfastly
> >> avoided it
> >> like the plague.
> >>
> >> Oh Cuddles, you have some 'splaining to do!
> >>
> >
> >And your explanation for your lie that I have defended the murder of Jews?
> Defense of national socialism is defense of the murder of Jews. QED, as the
> math folks say.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > you indict yourself as an accessory to murder.
> >> >
> >> > False again.
> >> >
> >>
> >> True again. When you rationalize the murder of innocents, you aid and abet those
> >
> >> you those whose
> >> follow through on the ideology to its logical conclusion.
> >
> >I do not justify the murder of innocents.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > It must be people like Thill that you
> >> > > are trying to influence, wouldn't you say?
> >> >
> >> > Well if I can influence them into a less destructive and more productive mode of behaviour
> >> would
> >> > that not be a good thing?
>
> A more productive fascism is still fascism. Care to comment on
> Searchlight's allegation that "What was certain was that every man
> on the party's top table was a convicted criminal. Welcome to the party of
> "law and order"."
> http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk/stories/bnp_annrally.htm
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
> speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
> opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
> Alexander Berkman
Searchlight? You mean the journal that was once described by a stipendary magistrate as 'scurrilous
and disreputable'? The journal run by a man who is a convicted burglar? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
David
David E Michael
John Morris wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <384BA405...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 06
> Dec 1999 11:54:45 +0000, David E Michael
> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire
> >kingdom, Tim, I would use one of the other computers, a false user
> >ID, and quite probably a different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But
> >you don't have the intelligence to think of that do you, Tim? All
> >you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it Tim?
>
> You mean you'd do something like call yourself "Cuddles" and get an
> account at demon.co.uk?
>
> Yeah, we'd never figure that out in a million years.
>
No. I'd call myself Andrew A. Skolnick and pretend to be a rabid anti-Nazi
poster.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOEw5n5QgvG272fn9EQID4gCfSp6z3poHVMZiowKkfGyQTkMsQegAniVm
> 3U3DpRbBqztEEMpueYyQYLA4
> =+SJ+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
Hilary Ostrov
<Orac_USA-CEB537...@news.earthlink.net>, Orac
<Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <384BA405...@btinternet.com>, David E Michael
><david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire kingdom,
>>Tim, I would use one of the other computers, a false user ID, and quite
>>probably a different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But you don't have the
>>intelligence to think of that do you, Tim? All you can do is call names and
>>tell lies, isn't it Tim?
>
>LOL1 And doing that works soooooo well to hide one's identity, as we have seen
>with Giwer, Bellinger, and Bradbury, eh?
Hmmm ... looks as though Lord Hem 'n Haw has had second thoughts about
yet another of his "vibrant new strategies" for polluting Usenet with
his propaganda:
<quote>
[T]he spectre of losing Internet accounts [...] is not a problem given
the existence of anonymous accounts. Moreover, this threat is far
weaker than it was a year ago now that we are living in the era of
free ISPs. I believe that there are over 100 of them in Britain alone
now. If I lose my BT account I simply move to Virgin, and then to
Freeserve and then to Claranet and then . . . well, ya get the idea?
[...]
[...] I'm still here
posting under my real name and I'm not going away (although I might
ALSO appear elsewhere in psuedonym form).
[...]
[W]e will be able to debate with REAL people -- people who are
susceptible to our message -- people we can influence [...]
<quote>
http://x40.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=515653040
Of course, as "vibrant and new" as they were, all of his September
strategies for "Thrashing the Enemies of Revisionism" were naught but
a beautiful daydream - a daydream that shattered when poor Little
Cuddles and the crew of the good ship nincompoop repeatedly had the
wind knocked out of their sails by the fact-lovin' folks of
sci.skeptic.
"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the
annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will
have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example
- as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged
indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they
will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon
as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on
down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated.
Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all
Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews." Adolf Hitler, 1922
"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from
lamp-posts. And in so doing they have my complete support." - Dr.
David E. Michael, 1999
"The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human
in the sense of being an image of God, the Eternal. The Jews are an
image of the devil. Jewry means the racial tuberculosis of the
nations." - Adolf Hitler, 1923
"I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype
of the Jews seems to be." - Dr. David E. Michael, 1999
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
WWW: http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
> David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:384C62A7...@btinternet.com...
> >
> >
> > John Morris wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > In <384BA405...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 06
> > > Dec 1999 11:54:45 +0000, David E Michael
> > > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire
> > > >kingdom, Tim, I would use one of the other computers, a false user
> > > >ID, and quite probably a different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But
> > > >you don't have the intelligence to think of that do you, Tim? All
> > > >you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it Tim?
> > >
> > > You mean you'd do something like call yourself "Cuddles" and get an
> > > account at demon.co.uk?
> > >
> > > Yeah, we'd never figure that out in a million years.
> > >
> >
> > No. I'd call myself Andrew A. Skolnick and pretend to be a rabid anti-Nazi
> > poster.
>
> Great! We look forward to your 'conversion' and to the work you can offer in
> helping to undo some of the damage your hatred has done.
>
> Welcome aboard. If you are good for a long period of time, we might even
> sign you up for your first set of 14 carat gold ZOG cufflinks. [snicker]
>
> --
> Tim
>
> ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
Are you sure you don't mean 50 carat gold, Tim?
David
David E Michael
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
> David Christian wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:16:10 +0000 c.e., David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
>
> > >And *your* explanation for your assertion that I have defended the murder of Jews?
>
> > Sigh, nazis just don't get it. Defending the national socialist state that
> > existed in Germany is de facto defense of the murder of Jews.
>
> Now Mr. Christian, don't go putting words in Herr Cuddles'
> mouth.
>
> Nazis didn't murder Jews. No. They killed their "enemies."
> And, as Herr Doktor Cuddles recently instructed us, an
> "enemy" is an "it." Killing an "it" is not murder, it is
> "self defense."
>
> The death of 6 million Jews was no one's fault but their
> own. If you become an enemy of the Nazis, you should expect
> to be killed. Right Herr Cuddles?
>
> Herr Cuddles says you've got to kill an "it" before "it" can
> kill you. The rule is as old as humankind, he says.
>
> Well, Herr Cuddles, here is something for you to think
> about:
>
> You are my enemy. And you are an evil (sh)it. Should I
> practice what you preach?
>
> Don't wet your pants, Cuddles. I would never take a life
> except in self-defense. And fortunately for you, I don't go
> by your twisted definition of self-defense.
>
> -- Andrew Skolnick
Andrew, I think you've forgotten your rabies injection today.
David
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@stopNazi.spam.mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:384C6E83...@stopNazi.spam.mindspring.com...
> > David Christian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:16:10 +0000 c.e., David E Michael
> > > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
> >
> >
> > > >And *your* explanation for your assertion that I have defended the
> murder of Jews?
> >
> > > Sigh, nazis just don't get it. Defending the national socialist state
> that
> > > existed in Germany is de facto defense of the murder of Jews.
> >
> >
> > Now Mr. Christian, don't go putting words in Herr Cuddles'
> > mouth.
> >
> > Nazis didn't murder Jews. No. They killed their "enemies."
> > And, as Herr Doktor Cuddles recently instructed us, an
> > "enemy" is an "it." Killing an "it" is not murder, it is
> > "self defense."
>
> Oh, and you forgot: it has been an accepted practice of warfare to 'kill the
> enemy before they kill you'. Those loopy Nazis were only acting in self
> defense when they sent those heroic Einsatzgruppen trooping across Eastern
> Europe and Russia to hunt down all of those evil Jewish two-year olds lest
> they harm the 'pure Aryan race' by waving their toys at them. After all, as
> Einsatzführer Cuddles informed us, such is an accepted practice of
> militaries everywhere.
>
> > The death of 6 million Jews was no one's fault but their
> > own. If you become an enemy of the Nazis, you should expect
> > to be killed. Right Herr Cuddles?
>
> After all, Buford Furrow, Benjamin Smith, and those heroic skinheads with
> ties to the BNP who recently committed terrorist acts against gays and
> foreigners were only acting heroically in self-defense to kill the enemy
> before they could kill them. But remember now, Andrew; Cuddles *condemned*
> these actions. They are, after all, inefficient.
>
> > Herr Cuddles says you've got to kill an "it" before "it" can
> > kill you. The rule is as old as humankind, he says.
> >
> > Well, Herr Cuddles, here is something for you to think
> > about:
> >
> > You are my enemy. And you are an evil (sh)it. Should I
> > practice what you preach?
>
> Cuddles just doesn't get it, Andrew. When given a chance to clarify his
> statement or denounce it for the evil it is, he has stubbornly maintained
> the right of neo-Nazis like him to 'kill enemies before they kill him' even
> if they have no intention of doing so. How convenient it is for him to let
> others practice what he preaches. What he doesn't seem to get is that if his
> words are found prominently on the computer of someone who has acted upon
> his 'sermon', he can legitimately be charged as an accessory to that crime.
>
> > Don't wet your pants, Cuddles. I would never take a life
> > except in self-defense. And fortunately for you, I don't go
> > by your twisted definition of self-defense.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
I wonder if 'Tim Stevens' *is* 'Andrew Skolnick' . . .
David
David Christian
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
>
>
>David Christian wrote:
>>a more productive fascism is still fascism. Care to comment on
>> Searchlight's allegation that "What was certain was that every man
>> on the party's top table was a convicted criminal. Welcome to the party of
>> "law and order"."
>> http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk/stories/bnp_annrally.htm
>>
>Searchlight? You mean the journal that was once described by a stipendary magistrate as 'scurrilous
>and disreputable'? The journal run by a man who is a convicted burglar? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
>
See Cuddles dodge! Dodge, Cuddles, dodge!
Are the leaders of your party convicted criminals? If so, what offenses?
Please show some sort of citation for your allegations about Searchlight.
Frankly, old chap, if you told me the sky is blue, I'd want independent
verification
>David
please change your name. There's a good Cuddles
Orac
wrote:
>"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
>communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from
>lamp-posts. And in so doing they have my complete support." - Dr.
>David E. Michael, 1999
>
>"The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human
>in the sense of being an image of God, the Eternal. The Jews are an
>image of the devil. Jewry means the racial tuberculosis of the
>nations." - Adolf Hitler, 1923
>
>"I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype
>of the Jews seems to be." - Dr. David E. Michael, 1999
Hmmm. I wonder what Doc Tony would think of your "bone-yard" picking here? In
this case, it was most instructive, though.
David E Michael
David Christian wrote:
<sigh> Another one from the asylum.
David
David Christian
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
>
>
>David Christian wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 01:32:36 +0000 c.e., David E Michael
>> <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote :
>> >
>> >
>> >David Christian wrote:
>>
>> >>a more productive fascism is still fascism. Care to comment on
>> >> Searchlight's allegation that "What was certain was that every man
>> >> on the party's top table was a convicted criminal. Welcome to the party of
>> >> "law and order"."
>> >> http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk/stories/bnp_annrally.htm
>> >>
>>
>> >Searchlight? You mean the journal that was once described by a stipendary magistrate as 'scurrilous
>> >and disreputable'? The journal run by a man who is a convicted burglar? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
>> >
>> See Cuddles dodge! Dodge, Cuddles, dodge!
>> Are the leaders of your party convicted criminals? If so, what offenses?
>> Please show some sort of citation for your allegations about Searchlight.
>> Frankly, old chap, if you told me the sky is blue, I'd want independent
>> verification
>> >David
>> please change your name. There's a good Cuddles
>>
><sigh> Another one from the asylum.
Are the leaders of the British National Party convicted criminals, and if
so, what offenses were they convicted of?
Please give citations for your allegations against Searchlight.
David E Michael
David Christian wrote:
Don't know.
>
> Please give citations for your allegations against Searchlight.
Certainly, Mr Christian. In December 1976 *Searchllight* was described by stipendary magistrate Mr John
Milward as 'scurrilous and disreputable'. See *Birmingham Post* 31 December 1976.
Mr Gable was caught red-handed burgling David Irving's flat in 1963. See *Islington Gazette* 17 January
1964. He gained a criminal conviction.
(It might help our readers to recall that Mr Gable stood for the Communist Party in 1962 -- and my source
for that is *North London Advertiser*, 8 May 1962.)
Let us not fall into the trap of believing that *Searchlight* has changed its ways. In 1987 it claimed that
its circulation was 7250. *Benn's Media Directory* for 1987 said the circulation was 3800.
*Searchlight* has often printed names, home addresses and workplace details of those associated with
nationalism.
And I believe I'm right in saying that our own Mr Baron recently thrashed *Searchlight* in the courts for
something or other.
Yes, Mr Christian. It seems you use impeccable sources.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
> speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
> opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
> Alexander Berkman
David
Yale F. Edeiken
> Tim Stevens wrote:
> > [Slapping forehead] Oh, that's right. So *that's* why so many of your
many 'supporters' have
> > valiantly rushed to your defense. How careless of me not to have seen
this 'silent
> > majority'.
> Tim, of all the hundreds of millions of Internet users in the world, the
only ones who have
> rushed to your defence are the usual three or four trolls who bash me
whatever I say.
That, of course, is the usual lie from Lord Haw Haw. Before he bagan
posting to sci.skeptic he boasted that skeptics would make "mincemeat" of
the arguments against his position.
He has yet to produce a single person who supports him.
> > Thank you ever so much for clarifying 'the type of people whom I wish to
influence' for the
> > readers of this thread, by the way. Since you did not denounce the logic
of the Nazi boy
> > Thill as cited below, but in fact went out of your way to justify the
logic that he used in
> > the murder of a black man by stating 'It also happens to be the logic of
conventional
> > warfare and has been since the Paleolithic. Do you disagree?', just as
you have justified
> > the Nazis murder of communists and later Jews who after all were seen as
enemies by the
> > Nazis,
> False.
And so Lord Haww Haw employs his usual rtechnique for denying the truth.
> > you indict yourself as an accessory to murder.
> False again.
Quite true.
> > It must be people like Thill that you
> > are trying to influence, wouldn't you say?
> Well if I can influence them into a less destructive and more productive
mode of behaviour would
> that not be a good thing?
What an airheaded statement to make about a criminal.
> > > The statements in question are invariably cited out of context and in
a way that makes
> > > it seem, to those who have not been following the arguments, that I'm
saying the
> > > opposite to what I was actually saying. That is dishonest and will be
recognized as such
> > > by anyone of value.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong again, Herr Cuddles.
> Right again, Tim.
But you cannot find a person whjo agrees with you.
> > People who have cited the oft-repeated statements have gone out
> > of their way to include the entire context within which these statements
were written.
> > That's why we had no problem reposting such things as the entire post in
which you talked
> > about 'the beautiful dream' of Naziism, and leaving in *everything* that
you said, which
> > only made you look even more foolish. You can whine pitifully all you
want to, but readers
> > of this thread can track these backwards to see for themselves the total
context, and to
> > observe previous examples of you wiping egg from your face.
> I have no objection to you citing my words. I *do* object to you being
dishonest about them,
> even when such dishonesty is advanced as 'irony'.
The only one being dishonest about the words Lord Haw haw writes is Lord
Haw Haw.
The ususal technique of Lord Haw Haw. Exposed as the murderous beast he
is, he makes some blacd denial.
> > By asking you again and again to forsake your support for a murderous
ideology? We have
> > given you ample chance to save face
> Tim, I am not interested in saving face. I am interested in showing that
anti-revisionist
> posters are largely (but not entirely) dishonest and hypocritical.
Which Lord Haw Hw does by being dishonest and hypocritical.
> > even while you continue to evade the denunciation of the
> > murder of innocent people.
> I denounce the murder of innocent people, except in a few very exceptional
circumstances.
That's a lie.
> > Or do you call it dishonesty when we juxtapose two statements
> > that you have made which directly contradict each other?
> Nope, so long as you do it honestly.
Which everyone has.
> > Here's a radical thought - brace yourself, because I know that this
*might* bowl you over.
> > You *could* treat Jewish people as the individuals that they are rather
than as
> > representatives of some imagined 'enemy' group.
>
> I've tried it.
>
> It doesn't work.
Maybe if you were not an obnoxious bigot, it would.
> > You *might* find, if you were to deep-six
> > your preconceived prejudices, that they are pretty much like everybody
else as I have
> > certainly found.
> I've been trying it for years. Trust me -- it hasn't worked.
As is obvious from your writings you have made no such effort.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Orac
<timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:384C62A7...@btinternet.com...
>>
>>
>> John Morris wrote:
>> > You mean you'd do something like call yourself "Cuddles" and get an
>> > account at demon.co.uk?
>> >
>> > Yeah, we'd never figure that out in a million years.
>>
>> No. I'd call myself Andrew A. Skolnick and pretend to be a rabid
>> anti-Nazi poster.
>
>Great! We look forward to your 'conversion' and to the work you can offer
>in
>helping to undo some of the damage your hatred has done.
>
>Welcome aboard. If you are good for a long period of time, we might even
>sign you up for your first set of 14 carat gold ZOG cufflinks. [snicker]
Indeed. The "turning" of David Michael would be quite a coup for ZOG,
and I'm sure our Zionist masters would reward us well for such a feat.
Personally, now that I have the ZOG decoder ring, I'm hoping for the
new, improved, super-secret ZOG decoder ring. :-)
Hilary Ostrov
<Orac_USA-329A18...@news.earthlink.net>, Orac
<Orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, considering that:
1) a.r.'s favourite third-rate single trick pony has never taken
particularly kindly to any hint of documentation - evidentiary,
instructive or otherwise (least of all if it arrives on his monitor
courtesy of my keyboard!); and
2) he only ever seems to be impressed with his own monologues (however
frequently he repeats 'em, adds to 'em, and/or answers 'em - as he has
once again taken to doing)
my guess would be that he will be decidedly unimpressed! Now ... ask
me if I care what Loudmouthed Lyin' Lomenzo would think ... come to
think of it, prior to his recent hiatus, I was beginning to wonder if
he had lost all capacity for thought (rational or otherwise) ;>)
Tim Stevens
news:Orac2001-20DEAE...@news.earthlink.net...
> In article <82i380$9e2$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>, "Tim Stevens"
> <timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:384C62A7...@btinternet.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> John Morris wrote:
>
> >> > You mean you'd do something like call yourself "Cuddles" and get an
> >> > account at demon.co.uk?
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, we'd never figure that out in a million years.
> >>
> >> No. I'd call myself Andrew A. Skolnick and pretend to be a rabid
> >> anti-Nazi poster.
> >
> >Great! We look forward to your 'conversion' and to the work you can offer
> >in
> >helping to undo some of the damage your hatred has done.
> >
> >Welcome aboard. If you are good for a long period of time, we might even
> >sign you up for your first set of 14 carat gold ZOG cufflinks. [snicker]
>
> Indeed. The "turning" of David Michael would be quite a coup for ZOG,
> and I'm sure our Zionist masters would reward us well for such a feat.
> Personally, now that I have the ZOG decoder ring, I'm hoping for the
> new, improved, super-secret ZOG decoder ring. :-)
Such lack of ambition! I was hoping to be endowed with the new, improved
solid platinum ZOG mind control belt buckle (with ultra sheen). Our mast...
I mean our friends ;-) promised me one if I could get Cuddles to wear a
yarmulke to his next Bund meeting.
The big prize, I'm afraid, is still someways off, and has been promised me
if I can get Cuddles to fly to Israel to pray at the Wailing Wall. If
successful, I will be allowed to touch the controls of one of the black
helicopters. I get goose bumps just thinking about it. [Hee Hee]
Gord McFee
As compared to the no one who has rushed to your defense. ROTFL!
[deleted]
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Orac
<timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Orac <Orac...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:Orac2001-20DEAE...@news.earthlink.net...
>> In article <82i380$9e2$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>, "Tim Stevens"
>> <timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Welcome aboard. If you are good for a long period of time, we might
>> >even sign you up for your first set of 14 carat gold ZOG cufflinks.
>> >[snicker]
>>
>> Indeed. The "turning" of David Michael would be quite a coup for ZOG,
>> and I'm sure our Zionist masters would reward us well for such a feat.
>> Personally, now that I have the ZOG decoder ring, I'm hoping for the
>> new, improved, super-secret ZOG decoder ring. :-)
>
>Such lack of ambition! I was hoping to be endowed with the new,
>improved solid platinum ZOG mind control belt buckle (with ultra
>sheen). Our mast... I mean our friends ;-) promised me one if I could
>get Cuddles to wear a yarmulke to his next Bund meeting.
>
>The big prize, I'm afraid, is still someways off, and has been promised me
>if I can get Cuddles to fly to Israel to pray at the Wailing Wall. If
>successful, I will be allowed to touch the controls of one of the black
>helicopters. I get goose bumps just thinking about it. [Hee Hee]
Now who's showing a lack of ambition? I was promised that, if I could
get Cuddles to admit that the Holocaust was, indeed, an intentional plan
on the part of Hitler and the Nazi leaders to exterminate the Jews, that
Hitler was indeed worse than Stalin (although we might have to settle
for his admitting that Hitler was merely "as bad" as Stalin--he probably
can't go farther than that), then go to show his remorse for his past
misdeeds by praying at Auschwitz with a bunch of rabbis, and then
finally declare that he has seen the light and convert to Judaism, I
will actually be given a ride in one of the black helicopters! What a
challenge! What a reward! :-)
Andrew A. Skolnick
> Mr 'Stevens', who I note posts using the same rather obscure ISP as Andrew
> Skolnick and 'David Christian' -- something that I am sure is merely a pure
> coincidence and does not in any way indicate that they are all the same person
> -- is not capable of rational debate. He can lie and smear and call people
> names, but he is unable to advance anything resembling 'argument'. When
> presented with argument, he runs away.
About time you tucked your tail between your jackboots and
scurry away yourself, Herr Cuddles. The ISP I use,
Mindspring, is ANYTHING but obscure. With more than 900 POP
access numbers throughout the United States and POPs in
about 100 countries, you again show the world how you love
to talk through your Nazi helmet.
What a twit!
> Example one. Mr 'Stevens' sought to demonstrate my ignorance by asking me
> whether I was familiar with Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. As it happens, I was, and I
> responded by enquiring whether Mr 'Stevens' was familiar with Professor Handel's
> comparative work on them. Mr 'Stevens', doubtless sensing an impending
> fleeceing, did not see fit to respond.
Well, perhaps he was too busy trying to figure out whether
or not he might actually be me without knowing it.
Herr Doktor Cuddles, not everyone has enough time in their
lives to respond to every point in the plethora of drivel
and lies that you post in your holy mission to glorify the
memory and ideals of the late Adolf Hitler.
-- Not Stevens, Not Christian, but me,
William Daffer
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> writes:
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In <384BA405...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Mon, 06
> > Dec 1999 11:54:45 +0000, David E Michael
> > <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >If I wished to sneakily expand the boundaries of my deadly vampire
> > >kingdom, Tim, I would use one of the other computers, a false user
> > >ID, and quite probably a different ISP. You'd be none the wiser. But
> > >you don't have the intelligence to think of that do you, Tim? All
> > >you can do is call names and tell lies, isn't it Tim?
> >
> > You mean you'd do something like call yourself "Cuddles" and get an
> > account at demon.co.uk?
> >
> > Yeah, we'd never figure that out in a million years.
> >
>
> No. I'd call myself Andrew A. Skolnick and pretend to be a rabid anti-Nazi
> poster.
>
And we'd immediately know that it wasn't Andrew Skolnick but you,
and then you'd look the fool.
Again.
(snip sig)
> David
>
William
- --
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBOE3cuSKcKc3OYUhpAQFKZgP/TQ/PZglwQLoyoFsqn1JA74DN2dJBfMl4
r0/CUtbDAkCDdvgprVnxAHChvj280CeXe58xQt6n27VYzOKN2pzqmwL9zcXnlnqE
VZViIJQnBu+X4ZwX0mctdDlctjEm6biezKvRTELYAspYzofuEaCgZhdXlEI1Z9FS
5J/UHAEu/pY=
=3JnY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tim Stevens
Ah, you have indeed humbled me sirrah! Actually *riding* in one of the black
helicopters! What more is there left after that except.... [dare I mention
it?] .... an all-expenses paid trip to the ultra-secret ZOG headquarters
located *under* the United Nations Headquarters in New York, complete with a
guided tour of the Von Rothschild Center for Strategic Control of
International Banking, the Lev Bronstein World Communist International
Center, and at the very heart of it all [*gasp*] the Lubavicher Commission
for Denying the Drinking of Wine Handled by Gentiles (the much heralded
LCDDWHG).
The lucky person who can mind-control.... I mean persuade Führer Cuddles to
donate all of his worldly possessions to Nizkor and become a trained agent
for Mossad stands not only to gain such a tour of a lifetime but will also
be allowed to operate the secret machinery draining the bank accounts of
Aryans everywhere and turning them into Israel Bonds.
(Sigh) But for now we must settle for humble steps. I will work on trying to
get him to sing Havah Nagilah before the end of the night. Our Zioni.... I
mean our Jewish 'friends' have told me that you are to try and get him to
publically endorse Bagels and Lox as a health food by tommorrow. I will
e-mail you privately with the secret ZOG mind-control activation code. <g>
David E Michael
Tim Stevens wrote:
> Orac <Orac...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Orac2001-20DEAE...@news.earthlink.net...
> > In article <82i380$9e2$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>, "Tim Stevens"
> > <timothy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > >news:384C62A7...@btinternet.com...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> John Morris wrote:
> >
> > >> > You mean you'd do something like call yourself "Cuddles" and get an
> > >> > account at demon.co.uk?
> > >> >
> > >> > Yeah, we'd never figure that out in a million years.
> > >>
> > >> No. I'd call myself Andrew A. Skolnick and pretend to be a rabid
> > >> anti-Nazi poster.
> > >
> > >Great! We look forward to your 'conversion' and to the work you can offer
> > >in
> > >helping to undo some of the damage your hatred has done.
> > >
> > >Welcome aboard. If you are good for a long period of time, we might even
> > >sign you up for your first set of 14 carat gold ZOG cufflinks. [snicker]
> >
> > Indeed. The "turning" of David Michael would be quite a coup for ZOG,
> > and I'm sure our Zionist masters would reward us well for such a feat.
> > Personally, now that I have the ZOG decoder ring, I'm hoping for the
> > new, improved, super-secret ZOG decoder ring. :-)
>
> Such lack of ambition! I was hoping to be endowed with the new, improved
> solid platinum ZOG mind control belt buckle (with ultra sheen). Our mast...
> I mean our friends ;-) promised me one if I could get Cuddles to wear a
> yarmulke to his next Bund meeting.
>
> The big prize, I'm afraid, is still someways off, and has been promised me
> if I can get Cuddles to fly to Israel to pray at the Wailing Wall. If
> successful, I will be allowed to touch the controls of one of the black
> helicopters. I get goose bumps just thinking about it. [Hee Hee]
>
> --
> Tim
>
> ********** We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo **********
Mr 'Stevens', who I note posts using the same rather obscure ISP as Andrew
Skolnick and 'David Christian' -- something that I am sure is merely a pure
coincidence and does not in any way indicate that they are all the same person
-- is not capable of rational debate. He can lie and smear and call people
names, but he is unable to advance anything resembling 'argument'. When
presented with argument, he runs away.
Example one. Mr 'Stevens' sought to demonstrate my ignorance by asking me
whether I was familiar with Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. As it happens, I was, and I
responded by enquiring whether Mr 'Stevens' was familiar with Professor Handel's
comparative work on them. Mr 'Stevens', doubtless sensing an impending
fleeceing, did not see fit to respond.
Example two. Mr 'Stevens' made some interesting claims about stone-age warfare,
which, he claimed, resulted from the work of 'anthropologists'. I pointed out
that the stone-age would be the province of the archaeologist and not the
anthropologist, and suggested that this indicated that Mr 'Stevens' did not know
what he was talking about. Mr 'Stevens' thereupon cited a modern study of a
modern people. I asked him what evidence he had to suggest that people in the
stone age behaved in the same way as modern peoples. Sensing his metaphorical
buttocks about to receive a sound proverbial whipping, he again remained
silence.
Mr 'Stevens', who I am sure is not really Mr Skolnick or Mr Christian, is very
good at ranting and raving about Nazis. But that's as far as it goes, it seems.
David