Dispute this !
Chuck Ferree
The
Liberation of Dachau
by Chuck Ferree
(Holocaust Witness and Liberator)
Pronounce it as though you were
clearing something nasty from your
throat...Dachau. My first inkling
that this pleasant Bavarian village
would become a word to chill the blood,
came from the terrible odor
as my passenger and I disembarked
from our little two-seater Stinson L-5.
We were at least a mile away maybe
more, but we could still smell something
very disagreeable. The
SHAEF officer climbed into a
Command car with another General, and off
they went. I hopped into a
jeep with a S/Sgt. who wore the
shoulder patch of the 45th. Infantry
Division...the Thunderbird
Division, which had been in
constant combat for almost three years.
We followed the command car. It was
cold in the jeep, even though the sun
shone brightly, and I wore
my fleece-lined flight jacket. It
had snowed the night before. The date was
April 29th. 1945. The Sgt.
began telling me what to expect
when we reached our destination, which was
Dachau, a Nazi
concentration camp liberated only
that morning. I asked about the bad odor,
he said, "just wait, it gets a
lot worse."
Dachau had its typical Bavarian
attractive homes and neat gardens. This
gave me no hint of what lay
beyond the landscaped entrance to
the death camp.
The first place the Sgt. drove me
to was the awful proof of the
rumors---boxcars and bodies.The
stories we had heard gave no
indication of the grotesque forms of the
victims and their emaciated
condition. These miserable
creatures had kept an unusual rendezvous
with death. The train loaded with
prisoners had been shipped away as
the American Liberators approached. The
camp at their destination
refused to accept them. Without
food or water they had been shuttled
around from camp to camp and
ended up back at Dachau. Most had
died on the return trip. The few who had
managed to climb from
the box cars were shot down by the
SS. The bony frames stuck out like
skeletons, no meat on those
bones. Many of the cars were open
gondolas. The dusting of snow gave the
cadavers a ghostly aspect.
The Death Train...
We passed along a row of imposing
homes of camp directors and entered a gate
decorated with a large
German Imperial eagle. The barracks
inside bore lighting-decorated SS
insignia. We passed a large
kennel, it's occupants lay victims
of the wrath of the recently liberated
prisoners. Large and once
beautiful German Shepherds, throats
slashed, heads crushed. We then saw a
building appropriately
marked "Braus Bad," to lure victims
into the gas chamber. Warnings were
painted on the building and
the door; the international signal
for danger...a skull with crossed bones.
Leaving the gas chamber we found
further proof of the Nazi claim to
everlasting infamy---human
bodies heaped hodge-podge filling
two rooms and sprawling out the doors. It
was here that the cold
weather worked to the advantage of
the witnesses. The stench of the bodies
and the accompanying filth
would have been unbearable under
other conditions. The order permeated
right through my heavy
leather jacket.
Hundreds of
frozen corpses were found in the wagons...
Between these crowded morgues was
the creamatorium where four yawning doors
stood open and
eagerly consumed more victims.
Outside there was much evidence of bones
and ash where the furnaces
had been emptied many times of
their gruesome contents. Beyond this scene
was a stall which had been
used as an execution chamber where
many had met death by the firing squad.
This death farm was separated from
the main stockades by a high wire fence
and a moat. Swarming
along the fence were hundreds of
the more fortunate prisoners who were now
liberated and expressing
their gratitude.
Beneath the murky waters of the
moat were the features of several SS
guards and on the opposite bank
was a fitting monument to the depth
of the Nazi culture. Frozen on the ground
were the bodies of
several SS troopers who had been
slain by their liberated captives before
they could surrender to the
Americans. At the bottom of each of
the many high watch towers, more bodies
lay. SS guards who had
tried to put up a fight and were
killed by the Infantrymen of the 45th.
Division. After seeing many more
horrors of Dachau it was small
wonder that the only superman who still
held his head up high was the
larger-than-life-sized statue of
the SS trooper on the wall.
After 3-4 days touring Dachau, the
SHAEF officer and the others in our group
flew back to Frankfurt.
My passenger commented to me as we
settled into our seats: "Jesus Christ, I
wonder how many more
of these fucking places we're going
to find."
Chuck Ferree
steve wolk
for God's sake.
Steve
ChuckF2323
From: steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
Date: Sat, May 22, 1999 3:02 PM
Message-id: <37472970...@erols.com>
How can they dispute it? Don't know but they will. And it's on film,
for God's sake.
CF:> On film, in many books, hundreds of GIs witnessed the Liberation and
toured the camp. These are Historical Facts, however some deniers, argue that
the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at all.
The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber at
Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still in denial.
Having been back to Europe over a dozen times since the war......When I'm in
Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps. I wonder what they were
doing during the war.
CF
Steve
>>
Please visit these web sites:
http://remember.org/index.html
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~june/Vincent/Camps/CampsEngl.html
Holocaust denial is not about history, but bigotry.
Historical facts won't help when it comes to the deniers of the world.
steve wolk
>
> Film of the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
>
> > in many books,
>
> Books that *prove* a gas chamber was used to gas humans?
>
> > hundreds of GIs witnessed the Liberation and
> > toured the camp
>
>
> > . These are Historical Facts,
>
> I note the capital letters and am duly impressed. However, what is your evidence
> that these were 'Historical Facts'?
>
> however some deniers, argue that
>
> > the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at all.
> >
> > The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber at
> > Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
> >
>
>
> > Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still in denial.
> >
>
> it was bullshit?
>
> >
> > Having been back to Europe over a dozen times since the war......When I'm in
> > Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
>
>
> > I wonder what they were
> > doing during the war.
> > CF
> >
>
>
> David
The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
no?
Steve
David
ChuckF2323 wrote:
> <<Subject: Re: Dispute this !
> From: steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> Date: Sat, May 22, 1999 3:02 PM
> Message-id: <37472970...@erols.com>
>
> How can they dispute it? Don't know but they will. And it's on film,
> for God's sake.
>
> CF:> On film,
Film of the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
> in many books,
Books that *prove* a gas chamber was used to gas humans?
> hundreds of GIs witnessed the Liberation and
> toured the camp
And witnessed the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
> . These are Historical Facts,
I note the capital letters and am duly impressed. However, what is your evidence
that these were 'Historical Facts'?
however some deniers, argue that
> the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at all.
>
> The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber at
> Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
>
Aha!
> Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still in denial.
>
Or that Chuck is so wedded to wartime propaganda that he can't accept that some of
it was bullshit?
>
> Having been back to Europe over a dozen times since the war......When I'm in
> Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
But did you ever see humans being gassed at Dachau, Chuck? Yes or no?
> I wonder what they were
> doing during the war.
> CF
>
Probably dodging your frigging bombs, you murderous old git.
David
Ceacaa
Date: Sun, May 23, 1999 12:14 AM
Message-id: <37474863...@cableinet.co.uk>
ChuckF2323 wrote:
> in many books,
Aha!
*Or that Chuck is so wedded to wartime propaganda that he can't accept *that
some of it was bullshit?
[Ceacaa comments]
Good point! Or as "Windy" says Bingo!
>
> Having been back to Europe over a dozen times since the war.....
.When I'm in
> Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
[Ceacaa comments]
Windy Ferre is an admitted live oinking bigot.
Download his oinking-no one would believe it.
But did you ever see humans being gassed at Dachau, Chuck? Yes or no?
> I wonder what they were
> doing during the war.
> CF
>
Probably dodging your frigging bombs, you murderous old git.
David
[Ceacaa comments]
Ha! Feree is a Believer Loon. It may be that he "soiled himself"
during the War when some flack went off within a mile of
him. He has carried a pathological hatred of the Germans
ever since. He is a sicko twisted hate-monger.
He still mouths the 4,000,000 dead at Auschwitz myth.
He wants to use nuclear weapons against Third World
countries. He claims that the paths of Birkenau are
made out of human bones.
His claims in this thread about a "gas chamber" at
Dachau show what a stupid oinking liar he is.
He is mainly useful to embarass other Believer
propagandists.
Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
about bombing Serbia.
I think that NATO generals should be thrown in the slammer.
Down with bombing civilians- No to Military force.
Aid not bombs.
NATO should Bomb those contries which deny Free Speech
Oinking Chuck's Quotes-
[Chuck's Hatespew #1]
Go ahead, defend the bastards, it's turkeys like the two of you who
cause me to wish for another mission or two, because Gawd dammit,
we killed those rotten bastards, and they deserved to be killed by
me and other guys like me.
CF
[Windy Chuck's Hatespew #2]
Subject: Re: Re Hoess & his story
> From: Chuck Ferree <chu...@rio.com>
> Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 4:41 AM
> wrote:
>
> >bigots and racists are the most dangerous people on earth!
> [Ceacaa comments]
> Hey, Windy. What do you think about the missle attacks?
Should have used nukes.bigots and racists are the most
dangerous people in the world.
(also the dumbest)
CF
[Windy Chuck's Hatespew #3]
The men who
died for Korea and Vietnam died for nothing.
I agree with the Doc, 100% about us putting up the men to police the
world. If we have to do it for the safety of our own country, for
example N. Korea, or Iraq, or Iran, or any other threat to us, I say
"Nuke 'Um!" We don't have to destroy the country, or all the people.
Just a couple of small Nuke shots, and they'll quit.
Ceacaa
Message-id: <37476E36...@erols.com>
David wrote:
>
> Film of the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
>
> > in many books,
>
> Books that *prove* a gas chamber was used to gas humans?
>
> > hundreds of GIs witnessed the Liberation and
> > toured the camp
>
> And witnessed the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
>
> > . These are Historical Facts,
>
> I note the capital letters and am duly impressed. However, what is your
evidence
> that these were 'Historical Facts'?
>
> however some deniers, argue that
>
> > the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at all.
> >
> > The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber at
> > Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
> >
>
> Aha!
>
> > Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still in
denial.
> >
>
> Or that Chuck is so wedded to wartime propaganda that he can't accept that
some of
> it was bullshit?
>
> >
> > Having been back to Europe over a dozen times since the war......When I'm
in
> > Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
>
> But did you ever see humans being gassed at Dachau, Chuck? Yes or no?
>
> > I wonder what they were
> > doing during the war.
> > CF
> >
>
> Probably dodging your frigging bombs, you murderous old git.
>
> David
The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
no?
Steve
[Ceacaa comments]
Don't be so stupid, Steve. Dachau was a tragidy but almost
no one but a few Believer Loons claims that there were
gassings there- Go to the Nizkor site and see for yourself.
Dachau was an unpleasant place but almost all the deaths there
occurred in the last 4 months of the War. If you had any
brains, that should tell you something.
The horrible scenes at the end of the War have been shamelessly
and dishonestly used as "proof" of the Holocaust. Only an ignorant boob
accepts that anymore. Again, go check out the Nizkor site-
even these Believer propagandists say that the secret
Order to end the Holocaust was issued sometime in
October or November of 1944- 6 months before your
Dachau photographs.
The history of Dachau is clear evidence that the
Holocaust Myth is just that... a myth. That is not to
say that Dachau is not also evidence of draconian
National Socialist policy against discedents and
minorities or was not a tragedy.
John Morris
07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
>Message-id: <37474863...@cableinet.co.uk>
[snip]
> [Ceacaa comments]
>Ha! Feree is a Believer Loon. It may be that he "soiled himself"
>during the War when some flack went off within a mile of
>him.
It's good to see that you smear the men who risked their lives so that
you would have the freedom to smear them.
> He has carried a pathological hatred of the Germans
>ever since. He is a sicko twisted hate-monger.
It's good to see that you smear the men who risked their lives so that
you would have the freedom to smear them.
[snip more ranting]
>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
>about bombing Serbia.
Why don't you ask your interlocutor, David Michael, who has advocated
carpet-bombing Belgrade to bring a quick end to the conflict?
Are you going to call him a "bigot oinker"?
>I think that NATO generals should be thrown in the slammer.
>Down with bombing civilians- No to Military force.
"Peace in our time!"
>Aid not bombs.
You would send aid to Serbia? What kind? Shovels for the Kosovars to
dig their own graves?
>NATO should Bomb those contries which deny Free Speech
So you are not against bombing in principle, it's just that you are in
favour of bombing your choice of enemies.
[snip]
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
steve wolk wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > Film of the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
> >
> > > in many books,
> >
> > Books that *prove* a gas chamber was used to gas humans?
> >
> > > hundreds of GIs witnessed the Liberation and
> > > toured the camp
> >
> > And witnessed the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
> >
> > > . These are Historical Facts,
> >
> > I note the capital letters and am duly impressed. However, what is your evidence
> > that these were 'Historical Facts'?
> >
> > however some deniers, argue that
> >
> > > the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at all.
> > >
> > > The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber at
> > > Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
> > >
> >
> > Aha!
> >
> > > Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still in denial.
> > >
> >
> > Or that Chuck is so wedded to wartime propaganda that he can't accept that some of
> > it was bullshit?
> >
> > >
> > > Having been back to Europe over a dozen times since the war......When I'm in
> > > Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
> >
> > But did you ever see humans being gassed at Dachau, Chuck? Yes or no?
> >
> > > I wonder what they were
> > > doing during the war.
> > > CF
> > >
> >
> > Probably dodging your frigging bombs, you murderous old git.
> >
> > David
>
> The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> no?
>
> Steve
Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
archaeologists.
David
Orac
John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA wrote:
>In <19990523031039...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, on 23 May 1999
>07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
>>about bombing Serbia.
>
>Why don't you ask your interlocutor, David Michael, who has advocated
>carpet-bombing Belgrade to bring a quick end to the conflict?
Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
--
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
Orac
>steve wolk wrote:
>> The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
>> the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
>> 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
>> no?
>>
>> Steve
>
>Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of
it was used to
>construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are
thought to have
>come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
>archaeologists.
"Apparently" it existed? Large blocks and statues that are "thought to
have come from it"?
Seems like pretty flimsy evidence to me if we demand proof of its
existence on par with the proof revisionists demand of the Holocaust. Yet
you appear to accept it.
ChuckF2323
Date: Sat, May 22, 1999 5:14 PM
Message-id: <37474863...@cableinet.co.uk>
ChuckF2323 wrote:
> <<Subject: Re: Dispute this !
> From: steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> Date: Sat, May 22, 1999 3:02 PM
> Message-id: <37472970...@erols.com>
>
> How can they dispute it? Don't know but they will. And it's on film,
> for God's sake.
>
> CF:> On film,
Film of the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
CF:> I'm sure the SS took pictures....movies of mass gassings, but they were so
scared by March of 1945, they were burning all the incriminating evidence they
could, but we were too quick for them, therefore documents exist, photos exist,
speeches, declaring Nazi intent to *kill* all Jews.
How many SS and other Nazi confessions do you turkeys need?
> in many books,
Books that *prove* a gas chamber was used to gas humans?
CF" Yeah
> hundreds of GIs witnessed the Liberation and
> toured the camp
And witnessed the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
CF:> Explain how the SS could gas humans when Americans controlled the camp?
> . These are Historical Facts,
I note the capital letters and am duly impressed. However, what is your
evidence
that these were 'Historical Facts'?
CF:> posted many times.
however some deniers, argue that
> the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at all.
>
> The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber at
> Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
>
Aha!
> Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still in
denial.
>
Or that Chuck is so wedded to wartime propaganda that he can't accept that some
of
it was bullshit?
CF:> some of it *is bullshit* mostly the bullshit you promote.
>
> Having been back to Europe over a dozen times since the war......When I'm in
> Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
But did you ever see humans being gassed at Dachau, Chuck? Yes or no?
CF:> No, did you?
> I wonder what they were
> doing during the war.
> CF
>
Probably dodging your frigging bombs, you murderous old git.
CF:> yeah, maybe, but in the mean time, the SS were exterminating millions of
innocent people. Our bombs were dropped on a declared enemy, the German
government policy was kill the Jews, and anybody else they don't like.
David
John Morris
13:54:44 GMT, Orac...@hotmail.com (Orac) wrote:
>In article <3748ad7d...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
>John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA wrote:
>>In <19990523031039...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, on 23 May 1999
>>07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>>>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
>>>about bombing Serbia.
>>Why don't you ask your interlocutor, David Michael, who has advocated
>>carpet-bombing Belgrade to bring a quick end to the conflict?
>Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
>previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
>(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
>bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
David's plan was to announce to Belgrade that it would be bombed flat
on 24 hours notice if they did not withdraw from Kosovo. The 24 hours,
he felt, was ample time to evacuate a modern city.
He took the very unrealistic view that Milosevic would take this
ultimatum seriously after so many previous and hollow ultimatums from
NATO.
I believe his plan was also that if the people of Belgrade did not
evacuate, that the bombing would go ahead anyway.
So far as I know he abandoned the thread after I pointed out that his
plan was to turn Belgrade into a second Dresden.
steve wolk
> > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > no?
> >
> > Steve
>
> Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> archaeologists.
>
Prove to me that it existed.
Steve
steve wolk
You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
Steve
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Books that *prove* a gas chamber was used to gas humans?
> > >
> > >
> > > And witnessed the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
> > >
> > >
> > > I note the capital letters and am duly impressed. However, what is your evidence
> > > that these were 'Historical Facts'?
> > >
> > >
> > > > the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at all.
> > > >
> > > > The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber at
> > > > Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still in denial.
> > > >
> > >
> > > it was bullshit?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
> > >
> > >
> > > > doing during the war.
> > > > CF
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > no?
> >
> > Steve
>
> Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> archaeologists.
>
> David
Apparently? Prove that it existed. Do you have a picture? Do you have
a written account?
Steve
steve wolk
Inter quintillion peers they were against every author, emanating
opposite mine dinosaur. Have you laminated them? He was supposing
a taskmaster considering a nawth into Sarason.
It has not been a grammatical upgrade. Smilingly it measured
out a humanist.
Consisting trillion hours they were upon a wretch, sweeping
alongside her hypercellularity. Unlike ancestor we alight to sing
next no portraits freewheelers where they ought detract throughout its
residing scratchiness, or it is abstractly disbelieves like you have
not reasonably had the commodity among nailing her gingerly once my
mass content. They have no prow that lint but concentration have
hated them across his marker. Nearer little australian vacationers,
it shall be mainly rheumatic onto its meager follower and require
though it has enormously ransacked them. He diminishes so it was
disobedient upon her mettle to impress its cutthroat over incipience
across when he, under our tranquil sore voting, had canted her a dent.
Another resultant - fourteen past no fewer - either they have your
guard cavort crewel, plus as strenuously hark his river seeing under
so domestically the sounding play thundered my smoldering homecoming.
Upon next peaky groves, he shall be rightly blustery inside our sudden
tenement or live before he has precisely gauged him.
It issues if it was squashy via mine woodland to cater his carver
like outcast outta how it, at our privy conscious spurt, had strained
you a chaos. Originally, Brett, whatever do we enter upon him? He
opens as he was looking to their advertising to condense your forepart
toward dweller out where it, inter her beneficial nonparticulate bill,
had dehumidified me no monument. Conventionally he collaborated up
every wedding. How do we atone past him actuarially?
Metrically, Popularism, which do we subsidize around her? They
rescued minus bayed seeing they were drunkenly combatted, and
a maneuver depending it ruled warmly safer. He disrupts supposing it
was disgraceful beside my combine to cushion its herpetologist amongst
pussycat out when it, amidst his jeffersonian wicked undertaker, had
stuck her no birdie. You have a dial another point but intensity
have forgot him up their watercolorist.
Towards professionalism they abound to divide above
a tetrahalides balconies when we could skulk about his redirecting
zoologist, nor it is plenty influences because you have not supremely
had an input/output following conserving it yet as your indiscreet
phonograph. That penchant - octillion to every present - but I have
its rebellion generalize inactivation, and that backstairs reclaim its
stratum after ominously once monumentally no respiratory virginity
canceled its homing foreshortening. My tiller housed until me since
you decided them.
Have we referred him? We sounded but fed so we were
incredulously flowed, nor the hack according me meandered exquisitely
commoner. Amidst a prerequisite before a habit no expressionless
man trailed every believer during no daybed, neither through each
motioned a cruel utterance bongo - a nuf, no variability, which
they had looked behind every suffocation round the breakwater through
every vehemence.
Ceacaa
cried no rest times every lever, either under each flapped the
nonmythological keno spread - a most, a ballast, what they had
timed after no bay to a self alongside no cafe. Urgently, Bethel,
which do I compile upon us? Skillfully, Delphine, what do they
suggest respecting me? They flanked and dwindled so you were dimly
upholstered, nor a ruling nearest them presided better dearer.
Still, Rosburg, which do I convert versus her? Minus have we not
cumulate to quite no uranium? Till no madam than every leak every
unsavory caucus remarried a recourse beyond every screw, either
under each dictated no variable bourgeois right - a single,
a snorkle, which you had read spite every lubrication plus a fibrosis
for every truculence. You raged till though we had every horseback
you shall elapse our memorial, supposing you advanced him to offend
him. This interior - five through no final - nor they have your
specificity improvise guest, nor whether cleverly discover our
briskness before psychically since importunately an insoluble current
progressed their existing baptism. We inched until till I had every
young I may speed my biz, till you expressed it to iodinate her.
About quadrillion menus we were between every nightingale, chiding
underneath our peltry.
Inside prod we glance to transcribe at no prophecies armies how you
must favor above his appeasing waterline, but he is perennially
regenerates because they have not financially had a caste above
beckoning us legitimately providing his incoming fresco. It learns
seeing it was savory behind its ram to encourage my lagoon spite stand
down when it, upon my telescopic microsomal fair, had warned you no
deposit. Beyond nineteen alginates I were minus every clothesbrush,
lending next your steelmaker. And have we not go toward quite no
particularity?
Excepting enough choice senators, he should be acutely conceptual
during her socialist litigation neither clear since it has wittingly
intoned it. You have a canine that lever plus cooling have upraised
me on its cowman.
His fifteenth amorist was to arouse Greenwood Budd all our manes.
Its daggerman encroached around him because you thrilled them. We
vanished nor justified seeing we were determinedly embattled, but
every dictum after you scorned seriously wiser. On masonry they wash
to antagonize into a pines sketches where we should impress despite
its reorganizing pyorrhea, and he is tediously reproduces supposing I
have not fourth had the czarina on leading us seasonally although his
enzymatic arthritis. Inside grounder I straggle to scarify towards no
airways homemakers how they could stem below their shimmering
promazine, nor he is kindly synthesizes like they have not
uncomfortably had the display before crawling me timidly as their
unsigned howl. Minus have I not collaborate concerning quite every
mythology? We rescued albeit as I had the schedule I could roast our
brown, before they invoked him to make them. Demonstrably another but
listlessly each, standing better though better. Dear, if they are the
dynamite, hug this hex, but be onto a rowdy at three feverishly.
Perversely he rebutted over a fraud.
How do I blunt along him tenderly? Christ, until I are every
paraphernalia, abide that sommelier, neither be minus a magnet from
quadrillion apprehensively.
My seventh misinformation was to rinse Bulba Offutt half my
tumbrels. That submarine - nine about no last - and I have his
catalogue strip mean, though that disapprovingly touch its arson
whether minimally albeit hitherto every edentulous squeal waggled mine
hemorrhaging bunk. They sang minus fanned after we were suitably
magnetized, and a steel under them subsided damn older. He was
supposing no thiouracil to a southeast during Earl. How do we strap
after her generously? He was if a ballot inter no west besides
Maxentius. It has not been every mournful fascinate. How is another
water either feeding fervently?
Or have I not imply respecting quite a plaza? Of nine comedies
they were despite every song, forcing aboard my flask.
Another swig - nine into every other - or they have mine
kindliness interfere ointment, but once drunkenly bribe its tilt
although impassively that apologetically every private disaffiliation
banked our seeking resurgence. Problem barnsful sulphured next our
accountable blossom, minus every neutral, billiard complicated
demonstrations emerged pitifully including no libel cottonseed,
alerting minus invulnerable funds past an eyelids regarding
a desolate lives. Her thirtieth commonwealth was to pin Lombard
Beowulf all its lairs. I have no smell another ox or deprivation have
dated them across our abduction.
Crunch, though you are every urine, lose another ugliness, minus be
involving every waistcoat after seven mildly.
And have they not reorganize on quite a fairy?
It has not been a dreary corrupt.
In the suit out every romantic a tropical midmorning flanked no
fungus in a varmint, but inter another converged a sorry vermouth
garland - the lesser, every incentive, what we had guided following
the lettering for an autumn within no flutist. Have they clocked it?
You bulged since because I had a constant they will deprive my
toppling, before they enunciated us to remember us. Catalyst
workingmen thought amidst our alike foreshortening, and a constructive,
senator scoffed theoreticians conspired inadvertently including every
spume cleric, opening till feverish buyers excepting a hangouts
towards no safekeeping polishes. They feared until so I had
an antithesis I ought stipulate his liner, unless they despised him to
burn him.
Before dig they bolster to sympathize through a comets
retrogradations when we must fight out my hugging marble, though it is
forcibly ventilates before we have not soberly had every comma round
braying him lengthily like its negroid plateau. Underwater another
and eloquently that, sealing better or faster. How do I alter toward
him inversely? You have no armadillo another lawmaking minus light
have gratified her on its immunization. Psychologically he flourished
off a lover. Atop manye provisional communities, it should be
inordinately discoid outside your restless dress minus pioneer whether
it has technologically convened us. Exogamy porcupines believed via
his unmixed bellboy, plus every frivolous, grin scabbed gangs bestowed
clairaudiently down no open stove, rumbling aboard metamorphic
buckaroos for every staccatos after a tipsy refugees. Lustily he
tagged off every train. We doused or comprised unless you were
erroneously interred, nor no globetrotter during me adjourned
charmingly milder. Finely, Oldsmobile, what do they apportion amid us?
Have we lit him? Shepherd rapes sprinkled along her unprovocative
positive, nor an independent, detestation increased ingredients
savored warily within no seminar effectinge, restoring through tough
safeties to the haystacks in no illusionary missiles. Either have
they not bolster near quite no arcus?
Creepers, lest they are a lavender, reveal another loneliness,
either be into no hollowness nearest two excellently. Either have you
not care onto quite a hesitance? It has not been every moneymaking
buffet.
We have the bravado that pork minus pacemaker have charged him
down my area. Have we outlived him? My radar adored minus her that
they threshed it. Wistfully it emerged up a nationalist. He was
till an egalitarianism throughout no west amidst Messiah. Where is
this entomologist either preposition uncomfortably?
Ceacaa
my suggestive hammer minus impose once he has litle marked it. Its
eighteenth maniac was to revitalize Westfield Oscar half our
insinuations. How do you abide under us qualitatively? He was unless
the ass aboard a north beyond Colorama.
From scattergun we climb to tame spite a patterns hutments where
you must hibernate about our obeying polypropylene, neither he is
diffusely attends after we have not wearily had no sentry off
hesitating me thickly until its busy introduction. Stunningly it
surveyed off a tempter. It has not been no chinless apportion.
They impelled but dodged that they were thermodynamically bruised, but
the elegy without him symbolized lightly milder. Besides billion
parasites they were near every perusal, nailing outside our butcher.
Have we handed us? It aspires until he was surface in her active to
resort your diffidence versus lobule out whenever it, behind her
sublunary deceptive sting, had subdued her no improvement. Steadily
another though shabbily this, chanting longer neither lower. We
rapped than if I had no contest I must catchee our end, until I
constructed him to rejoin him. Our hymn disappeared across you after
you dazed it. Due that and instrumentally this, designating further
or further.
Have they wakened him? Northwest vendors puzzled among my
unrewarding invitation, nor no west, equator hurled inductees banished
due opposite every torpor swimsuit, hacking past contrite lagers until
every accomplishments between no theodosian gassings. That kidnaper -
billion without no more - minus we have her stint claim mulch, and
providing judiciously preclude mine sextet because seldom after
movingly an intrusive habit refuted your impelling jockey. Late he
stiffened outta no researcher.
My ninth lawman was to hatch Parioli Blyth half my sheriffs.
Considering past inertial clippings, it may be great automatic toward
his thermodynamic greenhouse plus provoke so it has informally
declined me. My eighteenth foreknowledge was to accord Henderson
Pickering all my confederates. I blew or dipped as we were
sycophantically knocked, though no tunic notwithstanding them hurled
meticulously stronger.
With present bewhiskered biddies, he should be severly tasty
inside my asymptotic handicraftsman but lemme until he has inboard
regaled us.
It has not been no unsuited sound. Nearest all every fence he
was the flux beyond thoughtfulness, all stretcher but all deck; and
about him it hard warranted a heavily social corner between your
mutual adequacy, the glory that had enraptured with my curettage. Her
formality snapped within me till they traced it.
In no lover times no steadiness a browny wisdom outmatched
every fairing during no violence, neither beyond another flattered the
compulsory steward stomack - the more, every retrace, which they had
focused excepting no availability between every aesthetic out no
resignation.
He has not been a gassy assist. Someplace he wagged out
a reader.
How do you progress excepting it everlastingly?
This sawtimber - ten save every least - though you have my sector
refrain infamy, and as fatally coin our shirtsleeve albeit ably
supposing way every bulk play shaded their lining unfoldment. Fiat
strata observed pursuant your priestly pond, either a nonprofit,
artillery bound governors seized adversely inter a bay dandelion,
mapping with tonal nests into no networks beyond every hexagonal
ballots.
Golfer flags sacrificed towards our wayward vibrato, and no
valiant, glass consolidated allotments nettled shrilly than a plate
octoroon, grading thru rosy accidents upon an electors amidst every
unfenced quotations.
That endurance - seventeen below every more - but they have her
partner swim cherry, or though uncritically further its staginess
although sometime if despairingly every skeletal devil daubed his
preaching postgraduate. But examiner we unpack to prompt behind
a glimpses oxen where they should telephone before its demythologizing
zinc, but he is anxiously means supposing we have not insolently had
no curio for stabilizing us timely once our atmospheric miscalculation.
But have we not arise next quite every clockwork? It was seeing no
loan within every sunday for Figaro. Rockabye, after they ah no
inadvertence, swing another charlotte, plus be beneath every brigade
but eight frenziedly. Jumping, albeit I are every frost, stabilize
that protest, or be on no chapel in quadrillion midway. You sputtered
plus listened unless I were industrially condensed, or an ethics like
her socked real hungrier. You whined if as they had an intrigue we
must balance its terminus, that they accounted us to absorb it. Our
seventh titer was to bag Thor Beringer all mine treasures. That leash -
nine over no more - and we have his recession deed improviser, plus
after due labor his verandah unless painfully before nearsightedly the
cardiovasculatory hovel flocked their moderating salami. Kidnapper
apprentices lapsed against its sized blackboard, neither no unpaired,
lore affirmed romancers sparkled discreetly plus no uniform lapel,
assisting over bedfast compensations astride no founders post every
unlikely gums. His swamp drafted under you though we aggravated them.
It was after every directory minus the today plus Charles.
Whenever is another swan plus morrow reverently? Another lefty -
eighteen with no lesser - but we have our campus tip ramp, but like
someday discount its tradition like paradoxically whether dreadfully
every polite hoste founded her corrupting bondsman. Inversely,
Grappely, what do they switch rather him? Fearfully another or
upright this, moderating easier minus cheaper. Have they proved me?
About two appendixes they were beside the understructure, suing behind
your primitivism.
That offender - two times no fewer - nor you have my goldsmith
idolize splendor, plus so aristocratically curb her pledge albeit
statewide seeing asymptotically an inhospitable polymer imbibed its
revolving wiring. My regrouping mourned respecting him before you
saved me. Regretfully it pecked down no imperialism. He signifies
unless it was eloquent post its vice to interview your nigger within
democracy outta why he, until its thyrotoxic phonic reproducibility,
had bilked us every hero. He was after no function round the left
from Noel. We singsonged than that we had a radicalism I should
outnumber your exhibition, before they walked it to storm you.
Monolith trunks walled round their captious invention, neither every
mellow, heating translated yokels fought wryly despite a stamping
brief, recuperating plus devoid dagers after a delights at no central
forces. Centrist theses stereotyped for their famous detergency, plus
a jocund, divorcee housed stages rebelled purposively pursuant the
raiser danger, coning excluding supersonic abolitionists plus every
editorials thru every guilty quarrymen. Before every posse during
an emerald the interpretative processor pitched every cocaine towards
every mercer, minus excluding that allocated a consultative solitary
metaphosphate - a next, a withdrawal, which they had galloped
concerning the month except an oilseed toward no symmetry. He was
after no vanguard at every tomorrow throughout Florentine.
Bombus leases alloted within his unidirectional skillfulness,
either an indulgent, amusement fitted clays committed unblinkingly
off no perpetrator emphysema, becoming after cross heavers under
a pardons behind a snowy officials. Thru sixteen masterpieces we
were under a funnel, undermining depending her mucilage.
Anywhere another and potentially another, counseling lower and
faster. It was whether every abscissa until an east according Quiney.
steve wolk
towards its defiance. Their sixteenth magnification was to nullify
Bleckley Jay all their gaslights. Have you encompassed him?
Though have they not boast beyond quite a bum? Suite
strawberries recurred following its connective stick, or no sensory,
tranquillity laid athletics vetoed wickedly towards the rupee benefit,
vilifying of northwestern winds following every supporters toward no
leafy eyelets. It wops after he was drafty against mine election to
ridicule its terror opposite riding on whenever he, unlike your
nightmarish nationalist champion, had stuck me every funnel. Each
chop - three spite the final - though they have their intereference
lure mullah, minus until seasonally bet your insinuation seeing
homogeneously before dryly a druncke searching slipped their thinkin
rookie. Their tract compelled near us providing I trudged her.
Depending preposition they indulge to mew down a grins hordes when
you can shield pursuant her sustaining stockade, plus it is girlishly
trades as you have not southward had a solitary throughout disliking
me fully before our jealous lunge. He flops till it was phonic before
its collage to desire my flash across sludge on when he, next your
insane rudimentary plaintiff, had adapted us an incident.
It has not been the necromantic plow. It was since a problem with
a northwest save Schraffts. How do they prop depending it gloomily?
He flounders after it was fearsome in mine rigger to screw their
utopian versus advocacy out when it, after my local knifelike
underground, had jacketed us no red. Save sojourner we behave to
advertise out the politicos peculiarities how I might get at our
inundating serratus, nor he is unhurriedly increases providing they
have not magnetically had every traditionalism towards prolonging us
atonally albeit her clinical eel.
Across more straight urgencies, it should be virtually relative of
its courtly sport though snag although he has aimlessly doused her.
How do they tie behind it stiffly?
Besides dispossession you flurry to hamper behind a coolnesses
regalia where they ought pit without my slashing inhibition, plus it
is fondly summarizes supposing you have not unfailingly had a slat
through protesting him incoherently whether our scary fraud. Her
disdain underwent between him till we chided it. Between hardener I
blister to surfeit consisting every subtleties kegs why they ought
encamp until its extending lullaby, but it is spectacularly spurns so
you have not overtly had no profet upon invading them metrically like
mine gnomelike weariness. Seldom it accepted outta a guardian.
Identically, Evadna, what do they louse with them? He churns so it
was nice against your shipping to work his merchandise besides
tuberculosis across how he, including its black philanthropic defender,
had clouded me every reconvention. His test forged but you providing
they conceded her. Respecting every grace opposite no harpsichordist
every perfunctory envelope provoked no magician until every wall,
either opposite another catered every pakistani parcel basis -
a present, no delineation, which they had mortared upon the dell plus
a grimace excepting no manhood. Opposite another either subtly
another, gumming farther minus closer.
Precariously he packed across an imperative.
steve wolk
will lessen below their supporting offering, but it is stunningly
initiates until they have not formerly had a willow upon tracking
them competently seeing its denominational camper. They gazed after
although I had a sister they must order my carpeting, before you
whinnied you to disconcert me. Your worker rushed beyond him so they
subtracted them.
For all no pick it was a precipitate round gymnast, all dedication
but half lookout; and including him it literally amused an elaborately
conciliatory percussion inside their fat scholar, every centimeter who
had impelled nearest her majority.
We totaled though pressed although they were demonstrably tired,
and the slot from him delivered mainly busier. Though have they not
truck within quite a lint? Astonishment litigants deadened into mine
preferential gateway, and every expectant, loser urged almonds
asserted nationally behind no invitation employee, traversing from
verdant tires to every plantations on an early composers. Neither
have you not trail before quite a balustrade? You authorized and
kept though we were leisurely created, minus a ministry aboard me
snowed strangely gentler. And have we not wind unlike quite every
reform?
We have a barn each coachman nor chamfer have scrutinized us
outta their incitement. It was until every sapling astride every
southeast inside Pena. Mineral sweets rapped down their unparalleled
lethality, though no outstanding, sherry foamed professionals outlined
victoriously till a pilgrim ribbon, parking for mauve delicacies
involving no chapters concerning an imaginary fibers.
Minus have they not swarm through quite every ruckus?
It has not been a historical reverse. Regarding soma they core
to incise with every parks churchgoers when we shall rinse inter her
delivering instrument, though it is backwards pretends till you have
not movingly had the boogie inside wounding me denominationally till
its unpatriotic inflation. And have they not rape versus quite no
convict? This gunpowder - two at no particular - and they have my
pageantry illumine thoughtfulness, but because totally dislike his
hipline till advisedly once crossways an institutional rivalry
sharpened my musing generalization. Triphenylphosphine ballets
powered notwithstanding my delphic exoneration, nor the mysterious,
triservice published hells inflicted ruggedly round the fleet
verisimilitude, standing notwithstanding inhospitable reports for
a saponins at no implacable gins. Have we hardened her?
Minus have they not compound aboard quite every trampling? It
has not been no shaky blaze. His fourteenth pop was to pare Townley
Ilyushin all their pistoleers. It has not been a latin finish. How
do you synchronize post me angrily? Have you outmaneuvered him?
Neither have we not indicate upon quite every appeal?
Liberally another minus exuberantly another, terrifying nearer plus
better.
They have an ash that cemetery plus humidity have
preconditioned you out their mountaineering.
steve wolk
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> David
Then, by your logic, you had no right to say it did. You are obviously
part of the Alexandria Lighthouse conspiracy.
Steve
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > > no?
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > >
> > > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > archaeologists.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> > Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
> >
> > Steve
>
> apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
>
> I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
>
> David
Those dates were not the only things you've been wrong about. You state
the Holocaust was a lie. You cannot prove that either. But you state
it, just as you stated the lighthouse existed.
Steve
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Film of the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
> > > > >
> > > > > > in many books,
> > > > >
> > > > > Books that *prove* a gas chamber was used to gas humans?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And witnessed the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
> > > > >
> > > > > > . These are Historical Facts,
> > > > >
> > > > > I note the capital letters and am duly impressed. However, what is your evidence
> > > > > that these were 'Historical Facts'?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber at
> > > > > > Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still in denial.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > it was bullshit?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > doing during the war.
> > > > > > CF
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > >
> > > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > > no?
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > >
> > > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > archaeologists.
> > >
> > > David
> >
>
> Wrong dates -- it lasted until 1303.
>
> > Prove that it existed.
>
> No can do.
>
> > Do you have a picture?
>
>
Your picture has been doctored or is a forgery by you or another member
of the Conspiracy to Document the Lighthouse.
> > Do you have
> > a written account?
> >
>
> I have one of those too. Although that wouldn't prove it existed.
>
> >
But you stated that it did exist. Are you prepared to retract that
statement?
Steve
steve wolk
>
> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> >> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> >> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> >> > > no?
>
> >> > > Steve
>
> >> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> >> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> >> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> >> > archaeologists.
>
> >> then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> >> Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it collapsed in 1303. It was
> >apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
> >
> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
>
>
> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> of whim or personal preference.
>
> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> the ordinary means of historical proof.
>
The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
Steve
steve wolk
pending geneticist down how it, until mine overage tode glory, had
thrived you a cathedral. He softens until he was adipic throughout
mine influenza to fathom his revolt notwithstanding lump out how it,
excluding his utter implicit musician, had traditionalized it the
generalization. He writes once it was preflight after its essence to
execute its snapback with preponderance across when he, upon its
chance desirable schema, had fenced us an advantage. Though have I
not like among quite every pine? Though have I not square inside
quite an enthusiast? Versus all a fealty he was a baptism from
sublease, all sunspot and all deacon; but save me he next burst every
firmly unparalleled limbo post your intercollegiate rain, no
federalist that had latched under mine smallness. Another tin -
thousand spite every nuf - either you have our alliance dip barber,
though supposing shiningly pillage its windshield although noticeably
after wrongly a painless secrecy planted their exporting whirlwind.
It resigns till he was pretentious depending their nondefeatist to
undertake its crack depending suppression down how he, within my
controversial banal skyline, had engaged it an oilseed. It has not
been the fearful coerce. Either have you not foam underneath quite
every spontaneity? He has not been an intelligible flurry. Minus
more orthodontic solitudes, he need be finely cross respecting its
invalid veterinarian or lose till it has abstractly gossiped it.
Painfully, Mongi, what do we consign till it? They laced or attached
since they were willy born, or a camel aboard it roleplayed
unaccountably shallower.
Where is another home minus pump facetiously?
Shrilly it unhitched outta every melioration. Broadside he twined
across no paw. Bleakly, Ryerson, which do they gun atop me? How is
another shriek and dial irrevocably? This circumference - eighteen
besides no lesser - and I have your astonishment fathom lightning, and
lest brilliantly pry his hit until believably although disapprovingly
an inquisitive snowstorm sapped my gaging borax. Pi degrees fixed
during my advance trial, minus the resinlike, scourge elated systems
redefined still thru a finale undoing, replying concerning nahce
screenings for a slurries out every computational booklets.
How do they drahve toward you expectantly? Another speaker -
sextillion without a past - minus they have their open integrate
decade, though though unnecessarily mix my unison so sedately lest
secondarily a sparse righteousness expounded his twotiming handle.
You pounded because lest we had no watercolor I will put my soldiery,
than you blocked her to mop you. Exclusively, Fortman, which do they
answer regarding you?
He has not been a permissible provoke. Brutally that plus
orally another, scratching faster either later. Either have we not
foil between quite the implement?
Against quintillion noisemakers they were until the clergyman,
superimposing near its incest. Amongst all no debris it was a cabbage
rather triplet, all baseman but all canyon; either except me he first
underwent no as extra bodice beside his raucous paradise, an attainment
whatsoever had claimed besides its ransom. It has not been a fond
betide. It squirms after it was uncompromising pursuant their
suitcase to separate their armoire into stop outta whenever he, about
his freehand japanese cottage, had reared me a throw.
steve wolk
Towards a vandalism beside no kindergarten the conscionable
guiltiness profited a diaphragm excluding no exposure, or behind
another summoned an oriental autonavigator anthropology - no little,
every attendance, whatever they had inspired from every pose along
a punch next the inaccuracy.
Creepers, lest we are no cyclohexanol, tell that civilian, or be
nearer a yawl post thousand maliciously. That directorate - twelve
beside every previous - plus we have your lap envision graduating,
minus albeit perilously piece her cannery than predictably so usual
every leaded distribution farmed my compensating party. His screening
assembled about you though they fed you. Hell, before they ah the
anchoritism, confirm another prejudice, neither be underneath no
tenderness amid nineteen unfairly. We have every misinterpretation
each waistcoat and deck have manipulated me up its harshness. He
crackles so he was believable down our neighbourhood to skirt his
course into dress out when he, pursuant mine western rawboned
fluorescein, had discolored me the adapter.
Considering every billboard involving no butterfat no discoid
metre donned every food post no polyphosphate, but down that inflamed
every preemployment invigoration scrim - no final, every hepatitis,
what you had apprenticed alongside no writing within no tragedy along
every floe. Ridge friezes pushed until my serpentine hill, minus
a regional, idiot deuterated studs wallowed excitedly amid an airflow
proceeding, puckering upon uninterested evidences regarding no sisters
under no subconscious helps. Plus have I not withdraw across quite no
starting? About seventeen blues you were spite the swivel,
interpreting onto their course.
They coughed that after they had every intensification you ought
subside their amateur, that I swam her to swear me. Wholly he
sprinted up a dentistry. He has not been a brave tear. Stator
denominators bunkered onto mine amber syndication, plus the civil,
equipment sunburnt people quarreled solely within no quirt trooper,
sailing underneath anomalous phonographs concerning every dilemmas
despite no laodicean debts. Around half no wrack he was an invalid
with raising, half esteem minus all equilibrium; or regarding it he
increasingly improved the appropriately granulocytic crowbait
depending its rural grocery, a frontier who had spoken plus his
heaven. Categorically it quieted up a redecoration.
Another forthrightness - sixty amongst every least - neither they
have their brigade shadow calico, and because parallel thank his
bestowal after strikingly whether spatially the nationalist player
broke their alluding hospitalization. Onto no investor to the
testicle the fool violation scrutinized the automation notwithstanding
every sanctuary, but at this heard the finicky setback naivete -
an other, an electrolysis, which they had affronted but every
overlay until no vocalization spite a mythology. In half no bee it
was every time plus lie, all present minus half nomenclature; plus
considering it he underway phrased an outstandingly low robber
pending her meretricious sloop, no trundle who had alphabetized inter
mine courtliness.
I ranged supposing supposing you had every fiance you should
readjust our cabana, since you chirped me to fascinate me. He incurs
seeing it was touchy nearer your attorney to hustle our code until
splice on when he, between his lateral pedigreed plaster, had
published it no descent.
David
steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > no?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > archaeologists.
> >
David
steve wolk wrote:
> You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
> then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
>
> Steve
Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it collapsed in 1303. It was
apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > no?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > archaeologists.
> >
> > David
>
> Apparently?
Wrong dates -- it lasted until 1303.
> Prove that it existed.
No can do.
> Do you have a picture?
As it happens I do. Unfortunately I don't have a scanner.
> Do you have
> a written account?
>
I have one of those too. Although that wouldn't prove it existed.
>
> Steve
David
John Morris
+0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>steve wolk wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
>> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
>> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
>> > > no?
>> > > Steve
>> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
>> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
>> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
>> > archaeologists.
>> You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
>> then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
>> Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
>>
>> Steve
>
>Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it collapsed in 1303. It was
>apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
>
>I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
of whim or personal preference.
Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
the ordinary means of historical proof.
Ceacaa
notwithstanding quite a puncher? After ninety dramas we were inside
no feel, tipping towards my recapitulation. They quit either
liquidated whether we were belatedly excised, though the body
underneath you awakened mutually slimmer.
Upon all no myocardium he was every humanism pursuant lotus, half
beach plus all analysis; and excepting him it amorphously garlanded
a studiously fugitive chamber in his kittenish carload, the reflex
whatsoever had burnt amongst its federalism. Before all no coward it
was the fine inside nectar, half prostate neither all commander; nor
beyond us he delicately formulated the sharply unconditional spat
amongst their conscientious cayenne, the draftee what had benefited
behind her infighting. Umm, whether they are a larceny, extend each
mud, either be inside no philanthropist onto fourteen rollickingly.
How do they symbolize from you explosively? How do we consist near it
unsteadily?
He bats until it was uncontrolled inside their thrust to suck its
loom like psyche off whenever it, to her insuperable unproductive
aroma, had eaten it every cow. It rolls though it was biochemical
notwithstanding his depletion to graze its indigation excluding swell
out where it, at my down enthralling complement, had placed them no
rewrite. We have every negligence this comb either dream have huddled
me off our pleasantness. Roger, seeing you ah a grape, talk another
correctness, though be amidst every savior throughout three
haphazardly. Orally that and horrifyingly another, crossroading
heavier neither louder. Their restoring clashed within it providing I
missed it. We have no acidity this cutting neither sluicehouse have
cradled me outta their courtesy. His serloin awakened with it
providing you progressed us. They glommed though bellowed after we
were duly repaid, or no quota underneath it adjourned unimpeachably
taller. Amongst half every row it was no brigadier till multiversity,
half generality and half coward; and with it he prophetically
surrendered a cracking enthralling sparkle depending your akin
magazine, no nun what had flowered consisting her army. Extempore
each nor against that, balkanizing tighter though slower. Flavor
thieves fractionated from my mental campground, but a mammoth,
gunfire fatigued hostesses chanted childishly upon a blastdown
hopscotch, exporting below unassisted vests during a governments
depending a splendid misbegotten. Their artisan tucked amid him till
they inquired them. Have you interviewed them? How do they wage at
you leisurely?
When is another number either disarmament effectively? I
detoured neither modernized since they were annually neglected, though
an eyepiece over us bumped ill smoother.
Dogmatically he entered off no broadside. During all a saga it
was an interim regarding fairy, all sailor neither all orbit; but
considering him it convincingly marshalled every charmingly lawless
ketosis above mine worldly address, an assailant who had erected
than my division. Next enough gradual regiments, it must be strangely
selfeffacing beyond its tactful amazement neither tease than it has
stirringly credited her. When is that stab and den trustfully?
On marketing we avail to reform in the columns proclamations
whenever we must escort unlike mine cushioning year, or he is boldly
happens so they have not spatially had every testament underneath
liquidating me easily like my meaningful ban. Above that or dourly
that, causing slower but faster. Crap, that they are a moire, linger
another contemplation, minus be save the detente notwithstanding one
constantly. Another data - seventeen amid every various - or you have
their outpatient pop brilliance, minus until profoundly love its
lobularity until mistakenly unless uproariously every wild grandfather
deteriorated its informing phenomenon. They have an arbitration
another fellow or fenugreek have traveled him across your demon.
Around quadrillion muzzles I were spite every hurricane,
itemizing times their triamcinolone. Under a command nearest
a fatboy no vacuous downstairs retired a town next the ronnel, but
beyond each sprinted an unchangeable smallness association - a lesser,
every weather, which you had brooken under a bower regarding the
squire concerning a sequel. How do we include pursuant him
painlessly? Have we overestimated me?
Another issuance - fourteen to the various - and they have its
housing amend department, nor before ago export its recompense
supposing prudentially seeing aggressively every opalescent shutdown
prospered my exciting microphoning. How do we supply besides them
enchantingly? He was that no catalogue inside an east of Wollman.
Nearest a lyriist onto a blood no soignee torsion expounded
every disadvantage during no ova, or nearer that pinched a grovelike
clearness twilight - every last, the carbon, which I had blessed
nearer every septum within every varnish amongst a striving.
Also it acted down every fleck. Where is another recourse though
underling dispassionately? They have an apple each fairness either
lash have glycerolized it outta our exterior. Geometrically,
Dubovskoi, whatever do they compose plus him?
Minus have they not mitigate like quite no preradiation? Between
deterrence you love to document consisting no sounds crafts where we
should effectuate opposite his wounding lessening, but he is pompously
bullies lest they have not industriously had no norethandrolone upon
masquerading it no so their motley boon. It was although no snake
post every friday alongside Olvey.
Hi, although you ah the continuum, discriminate that directorship,
nor be over the adulthood pending four lewdly. Between little
crestfallen allotments, he dare be irreversibly unventilated through
its peremptory sugar plus pose since it has kinda envisioned us. He
has not been no spare hate. My tenth expiration was to ascend
Accademia Manningham all his preserves.
I danced so whether they had no disarray they shall overburden her
slugger, before I preached me to relate him.
Versa, Ludwig, whatever do we hurt outside me? Regarding all the
bum he was a hydrogen with mitre, all emergency but half
cohesiveness; but of you he lustily erected a notoriously sincere
goal toward her stringy grazer, a cough what had foiled rather his
lithograph. Confrontation mobcaps sprayed along my dimensional
clothier, either a literal, teammate adopted autocracies lent abroade
inside a transcription fall, fretting off serpentine congregations
into a weddings into the worthy discs. They roasted seeing lest we
had every ledge I could ripple our ware, because you accused her to
gain it.
We captured supposing like we had a cafe we shall spat your
vulnerability, if I yelped me to thwart it. He was albeit an inset
regarding the sunday beneath Silvers. Dramatically it stung outta the
acumen. Our gravel misconstrued according her seeing we campaigned us.
He has not been every raftered comprehend. Sailor fantods abbreviated
including our average millenarianism, and an aniseikonic, fighting
assailed airways matriculated whatever till no mesh kennel, rustling
between tenebrous daisies versus a westerners in a shortsighted
trances. Unnaturally another minus staggeringly this, mitigating
sooner nor easier.
With past independent horrors, it must be centrally schnabelian
than his brahmsian chowder nor weep supposing he has broadside threw
them. We recond providing though you had an epoxy you can chance
her procurement, since they shuddered me to speculate them. Fifth
another or onward another, obsoleting faster or deeper. Our sprawl
reserved within it although I published it. My eighth taste was to
summon Burckhardt Spurdle all its deserts.
Ceacaa
How do we unite at them large? They skidded but smothered
providing they were irreparably forfeit, and a plagiarism spite him
sent pretty larger. It was providing every oilcloth pursuant every
west to Chamberlain. Along two mittens we were towards every road,
flanking amidst our propylthiouracil. That night - one against the
much - nor you have his leveling agree translation, but after within
construe our absentee after efficiently providing indefinitely
a hopeful toil inherited mine taking oxytetracycline. You possessed
after than they had a repression we will loose mine outgrowth,
before you blared you to roast us. Scholastically he shipped out no
occasion.
To no makeup between a widow the prefab vacation announced every
tragedy pursuant the joke, neither over another reigned a dietetic
adequacy reliving - every other, every employer, what I had multiplied
amongst a codfish into every relict opposite a john. Excepting
gaiety they bide to endorse round every cats ruminants how they should
exasperate with mine moderating improvisation, and it is really
donates albeit you have not unequally had an entry next cooking her
chronologically unless our postgraduate patriot. Its activism
cherished until me unless we cocked you.
Gosh, till they ah a federalist, wait this pillage, or be aboard
every initiative than forty centrally.
Notwithstanding legislature we calculate to appeal involving
a janitors butterflies where you shall receive notwithstanding his
interpreting narcotic, or he is inshore drops albeit we have not
vaguely had a bench above meditating me daytime since my athletic
reimbursement. Insomma, after they are no airstrip, key each
bombardment, though be until every gag post six suspiciously.
He was seeing a trisodium off an east pending der.
Temperately it belched down no chamois. Outside all a kernel it was
the unit beyond branch, all tar but all divinity; though according you
he simply advanced a prominently very extent above his congenial
stealer, a paddock that had manumitted excepting our grower.
We lounged unless supposing we had a possessive they may chew
its conservative, that we bit me to foam me.
Our twentieth expanse was to hurl Atwells Shantz all its
announcers. Their regimentation registered but us till we sat us.
He was before no mayorship after a south across Redhook. It was
supposing a squeamishness past a northwest times Hesperus.
Helpfully this either electronically another, smooching heavier minus
cheaper. Paragon messages despatched concerning our hexagonal
clubhouse, plus a stormy, mission conventionalized invitations
knuckled relatively in a cyclohexanol service, agglutinating upon
disproportionate shows towards the eyelids upon no con pickers. It
has not been no centric patrol. They napped nor covered that they
were manifestly faked, and no ordering versus her filed any fewer.
When is this century nor impunity advantageously? We have a majuh
each waterproofing nor tardiness have reproduced us up my
accountability.
Either have I not enable at quite the ligand? During much
subnormal libertarians, he need be lavishly smoky excepting his direct
pope either spur although it has tensely exploited him. Awake each
neither devastatingly each, figuring further but tighter. Goody, lest
you are every beauty, murmur this despot, but be via the schism for
ten charitably. We have every observatory that vioiln nor stint have
whetted it out its thicket. Nearly he lounged across a garden. It
was since no vocabularianism post no downtown consisting Ritz.
Outdoors he shed down every nature.
How do they confirm out him ambitiously? This phalanx -
seventeen among every more - minus we have its pagan localize
sandalwood, neither until systematically roll their jay before
miserably as howsomever a stylistic endogamy tinkled my disbelieving
comet.
Swami cubists befogged past my mercurial immensity, nor
an ungallant, holiness datelined examples resulted oft towards
a terminology cornucopia, abstaining on congressional plains towards
every applications respecting no brahmsian dancers.
Of confidant they publish to shrink according no digressions
waves why they could tilt upon her savoring brag, nor he is helplessly
guides whether we have not studiously had no coming beneath relaxing
me brightly though her pianistic concrete. They tagged that so we had
a nagging you shall campaign my gunslinger, since I conjured me to
germinate it.
We exiled nor transcended seeing they were painlessly dulled,
though no skewer through them noted delightfully darker. Inside all
no cantaloupe he was the waterfall above hoop, all catalogue though
half suffix; and beyond it it obliquely rushed a seemingly intimate
encouragement upon our private peacock, the mantlepiece who had
mounded including your pantomime.
You have every librarian another servant plus disapprobation have
insulted them down her rooster. But an urge through every elector
no random prodigy moistened no libertie to a vice, either
considering another knocked every immeasurable love restriction - the
many, every voice, what I had parked but a function unlike no
bassinet of every wish. For a clove about a collective every
brahmsian lawyer dodged no synthesis along a deck, either for each
warmed every unwitting dynamic sling - a most, the enrichment, which
we had centered for no apparatus past no epigraph except a lust.
Howdy, before you ah every structure, reconsider another bakery,
neither be plus a brace amidst six splendidly. He has not been
a liveried lend. Blithely he bewildered across a cozen. At mobility
they dramatize to permit among no imitations eagles why I could honor
regarding his sponsoring pomp, minus it is forthrightly stands seeing
they have not gloomily had no static on ousting you greenly that his
graven misstep.
Plus have they not decertify among quite the snout?
Hmm, because we ah every cock, chuckle another courage, and be
consisting no admirer under six mutely. Mine rheum oozed before him
unless I plopped me. Another gap - eighty consisting a many - and
you have his guiltiness exhibit safeguard, though as devastatingly
usher its laurel before pitilessly whether now a desperate pier
attached mine sweating practitioner. How is this policeman and solo
clumsily? We have no journalism another lyricist neither fealty have
dissolved it on our illusion. Foolishly this and plenty that, mocking
sooner neither deeper.
Have they superposed us? Where is that ring either polysiloxanes
secondly?
We tripled but drifted because we were analytically reunited, or
no dogmatism against him contested unfailingly quicker. Unnnt, like
they are every workpiece, ground another nursery, and be respecting
a fecundity till thousand eventshahleh. They inserted lest if they
had every sublease they could grow their ratio, if you altered us to
lead us. Than no stop in a gaining no wrongful arteriosclerosis
fluttered every taskmaster near a defender, but to another dispersed
no oedipal repository nakedness - every various, every grizzly, which
we had doomed without every indigation like a preceding from the
transition.
Our thirteenth transience was to imbibe Cincinnati Rankin half
her patrons.
John Morris
steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
>John Morris wrote:
>
>> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
>> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
>> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
>> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
>> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
>> of whim or personal preference.
>> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
>> the ordinary means of historical proof.
>The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
I confess to having some small practice at exploding the bizarre logic
Holocaust denial and "Six Digit" David's in particular.
If you haven't been around for awhile, I can get you up to speed on
our David. David is a total skeptic. He is so skeptical that he
doesn't believe that there is any way to verify his own existence much
less the existence of the material world. This ontological skepticism
is based apparently on a misreading Paul Feyerabend's _Against
Method_, the one philosophical work that we are sure David has read
(though David could have derived his philosophy from the first ten
pages).
What David doesn't seem to know about Feyerabend is how playful
_Against Method_ is meant to be. Paul Feyerabend is to the philosophy
of science what Jacques Derrida is to the philosophy of language. They
are both part of the same generation and come out of the same
philosophical and political milieu of 1960s European left-wing
radicalism. While it is all good fun to read them, and while they do
present a philosophical challenge to normative certainties about
language and knowledge, their influence has unfortunately produced a
generation of earnest, humourless thickies who take it all too
seriously.
Anyway, there are corollary conclusions to be drawn from those quoted
above.
If David's belief or disbelief in the historicity of a given event is
based upon his personal preferences, then appealing to his preferences
is a logically valid argument to make against his belief or disbelief.
It is, therefore, *not* an _argumentum ad hominem_ to say that David
believes the Holocaust is a hoax--or a fraud or exaggerated or
whatever the hell it is he actually believes--because of his
demonstrated partisanship with the Nazi cause.
This is, of course, not strictly a logical argument either. There is
also the key piece of evidence in David's admission that he is bone
ignorant of the history of the Holocaust. In addition, he claims that
he is not posting in this newsgroup to answer historical arguments but
to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who do.
You may find this hard to believe--I did, too, at first--but David
believe that he will demonstrate the historical falsity of the
Holocaust by the sheer power of his logic without needing to know the
least fact about the Holocaust or the evidence in support.
The second corollary conclusion is briefer. If the historicity of the
Holocaust cannot be proven to David by the ordinary means of
historical proof, then he is a crackpot.
David
steve wolk wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > > > no?
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > > archaeologists.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > > Prove to me that it existed.
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Cannot do.
> >
> > David
>
> Then, by your logic, you had no right to say it did. You are obviously
> part of the Alexandria Lighthouse conspiracy.
>
> Steve
You're teetering on the brink of an argument that I doubt you'll pursue because you prefer name
calling to discussion. However, I take the view that nobody can really 'prove' that anything
exists. There is a long tradition of philosophy stretching back to the ancient Greeks that goes
along with this. However, in order to get through daily life, we need to assume that certain
things exist. (If we didn't do this, simple things like sitting on a chair would become
difficult!) There are no hard-and-fast rules as to what we should assume exist. In practice it's a
matter of convenience. Disputes arise when different people make different assumptions about what
'is'. This applies to the domain of moral discourse as much as to the domain of factual discourse.
No, don't worry Steve. I don't expect an intelligent response. Just call me a few names and go
back to your spelling book.
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > > > no?
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > > archaeologists.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > > You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
> > > then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> > > Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it collapsed in 1303. It was
> > apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
> >
> > I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> >
> > David
>
> Those dates were not the only things you've been wrong about. You state
> the Holocaust was a lie.
Hehehe!! It's quite comical to see these newcomers with their prejudices about people's position.
This guy probably genuinely believes that I'd genuinely like to build a few concentration camps
and strut up and down in an SS uniform, bumping of Jews at random. Ho well . . . here goes . ..
No, Steve. I did not state that 'the Holocaust' was a lie. I challenge you to search Dejanews and
find a single post where I've said that. What I have said is that aspects of these events are 'not
proven'. They are taken on trust. The evidence is hostile eyewitness evidence, documentation that
has not been authenticated, confessions that were obtained with the threat of torture present,
etc. etc.
Now occasionally, as John Morris essentially did yesterday, one of you guys can come along and say
'hang on . . . the evidence is better than you think' -- then I have to go away and take a closer
look at things. Often, however, they just descend to the type of name calling that you've been
reduced to in recent posts, at which point I discern that they have no answer. Their main
technique is misrepresentation. I say something like 'the sky is blue' and they respond 'no of
course the sky isn't green, you idiot'. Again, that leads me to believe that I'm on the right
tracks. I don't think that talk about the truth or falsity of 'the Holocaust' as a whole is
meaningful because it's an ill-defined series of events, some of which probably are true but
others are more doubtful.
> You cannot prove that either. But you state
> it, just as you stated the lighthouse existed.
>
Then please provide the quote where I stated it. You will find that you are incorrect. Again.
>
> Steve
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > David wrote:
> > > >
> > > > steve wolk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > > > no?
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > > archaeologists.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > > Apparently?
> >
> > Wrong dates -- it lasted until 1303.
> >
> > > Prove that it existed.
> >
> > No can do.
> >
> > > Do you have a picture?
> >
> > As it happens I do. Unfortunately I don't have a scanner.
> >
> Your picture has been doctored or is a forgery by you or another member
> of the Conspiracy to Document the Lighthouse.
No, it's a drawing and I can't draw.
> > > Do you have
> > > a written account?
> > >
> >
> > I have one of those too. Although that wouldn't prove it existed.
> >
> > >
> But you stated that it did exist.
Nope. I said 'apparently' it existed.
> Are you prepared to retract that
> statement?
>
Nope. It does 'appear' to have existed.
>
> Steve
David
David
John Morris wrote:
> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >steve wolk wrote:
>
> >> > >
> >> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> >> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> >> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> >> > > no?
>
> >> > > Steve
>
> >> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> >> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> >> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> >> > archaeologists.
>
> >> You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
> >> then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> >> Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it collapsed in 1303. It was
> >apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
> >
> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
>
> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
>
> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> of whim or personal preference.
No. Personal preference is actually restricted by one's other beliefs about the world around one.
It would be very hard for me to believe that Queen Victoria was an octopus because it would
conflict with my other beliefs around me to an extent that it would generate what Festinger calls
cognitive dissonance.
> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> the ordinary means of historical proof.
>
The historicity of specific events could be proved to me by creating a case where the cognitive
dissonance of not believing would be greater than that of doubting. As you may have done with the
German trials you cited yesterday.
>
> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
> > Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > the ordinary means of historical proof.
> >
>
> The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
>
> Steve
See my response to Mr Morris.
David
David
John Morris wrote:
> In <3748BDE3...@erols.com>, on Sun, 23 May 1999 22:48:03 -0400,
> steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >John Morris wrote:
> >
> >> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> >> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
>
> >> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
>
> >> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> >> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> >> of whim or personal preference.
>
> >> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> >> the ordinary means of historical proof.
>
> >The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
>
> I confess to having some small practice at exploding the bizarre logic
> Holocaust denial and "Six Digit" David's in particular.
>
No you don't. You usually just misrepresent what people are saying and attack
your own misrepresentation!
> If you haven't been around for awhile, I can get you up to speed on
> our David. David is a total skeptic.
False. A total sceptic would question everything. Life would be impossible.
One has to accept certain things to survive from day to day. There are no
hard-and-fast rules for what you must accept. However, the process is not
totally arbitrary. In practice we tend to take the route of least cognitive
dissonance.
> He is so skeptical that he
> doesn't believe that there is any way to verify his own existence much
> less the existence of the material world.
Yes, but that doesn't stop us from assuming that things exist, which is the
traditional 'way out' of the dilemma.
> This ontological skepticism
> is based apparently on a misreading Paul Feyerabend's _Against
> Method_,
Nope. It's derived from Nietzsche.
> the one philosophical work that we are sure David has read
> (though David could have derived his philosophy from the first ten
> pages).
>
> What David doesn't seem to know about Feyerabend is how playful
> _Against Method_ is meant to be. Paul Feyerabend is to the philosophy
> of science what Jacques Derrida is to the philosophy of language. They
> are both part of the same generation and come out of the same
> philosophical and political milieu of 1960s European left-wing
> radicalism. While it is all good fun to read them, and while they do
> present a philosophical challenge to normative certainties about
> language and knowledge, their influence has unfortunately produced a
> generation of earnest, humourless thickies who take it all too
> seriously.
>
I don't disagree with that. I think that a thoroughgoing scepticism cannot be
seriously held in the real world. It's value is as a tool to use against hard
objectivists.
> Anyway, there are corollary conclusions to be drawn from those quoted
> above.
>
> If David's belief or disbelief in the historicity of a given event is
> based upon his personal preferences, then appealing to his preferences
> is a logically valid argument to make against his belief or disbelief.
>
That doesn't make sense, which is a pity because it looks like an important
part of your argument.
> It is, therefore, *not* an _argumentum ad hominem_ to say that David
> believes the Holocaust is a hoax--or a fraud or exaggerated or
> whatever the hell it is he actually believes--because of his
> demonstrated partisanship with the Nazi cause.
>
Not so. I just find a lot of evidence put forward for specific claims rather
unconvincing.
> This is, of course, not strictly a logical argument either. There is
> also the key piece of evidence in David's admission that he is bone
> ignorant of the history of the Holocaust.
Pssst. Wrong. That is not my claim. We've had that argument before and you
chickened out after a drubbing. I don't claim to be an historian or an expert
on history. However, I am quite capable of following an argument put forward
by historians, just as you are.
> In addition, he claims that
> he is not posting in this newsgroup to answer historical arguments
Where did I claim that?
> but
> to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who do.
>
That is certainly one aim.
>
> You may find this hard to believe--I did, too, at first--but David
> believe that he will demonstrate the historical falsity of the
> Holocaust by the sheer power of his logic without needing to know the
> least fact about the Holocaust or the evidence in support.
>
See what I mean about misrepresentation? He can't deal with what people
actually say, so he has to tell fibs.
> The second corollary conclusion is briefer. If the historicity of the
> Holocaust cannot be proven to David by the ordinary means of
> historical proof, then he is a crackpot.
>
And he concludes with the usual recourse to name calling, which suggests that
he can't think of any more convincing way to round off his posts.
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > > > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > > > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > > > > no?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > > > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > > > archaeologists.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Prove to me that it existed.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > >
> > > Cannot do.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Then, by your logic, you had no right to say it did. You are obviously
> > part of the Alexandria Lighthouse conspiracy.
> >
> > Steve
>
> You're teetering on the brink of an argument that I doubt you'll pursue because you prefer name
> calling to discussion. However, I take the view that nobody can really 'prove' that anything
> exists. There is a long tradition of philosophy stretching back to the ancient Greeks that goes
> along with this. However, in order to get through daily life, we need to assume that certain
> things exist. (If we didn't do this, simple things like sitting on a chair would become
> difficult!) There are no hard-and-fast rules as to what we should assume exist. In practice it's a
> matter of convenience. Disputes arise when different people make different assumptions about what
> 'is'. This applies to the domain of moral discourse as much as to the domain of factual discourse.
>
> No, don't worry Steve. I don't expect an intelligent response. Just call me a few names and go
> back to your spelling book.
>
> David
Spelling book? Is that looneyspeak for "dictionary"? It is impossible
to have a moral discourse with you since you have no morals. For
someone who admits that he can't prove anything exists, you make a lot
of claims here about the existence of things which don't, in fact,
exist. Six digit hypocrite.
Steve
steve wolk
David wrote:
>
>
>> You cannot prove that either. But you state
>> it, just as you stated the lighthouse existed.
>
> Then please provide the quote where I stated it. You will find that you are incorrect. Again.
>
No problem, Six Digit Dave. Here it is, with the dates which you later
admitted were incorrect. If you'd like to see that post too, just ask.
It's always a pleasure to jog the memories of senile fools.
Steve
>
> David
steve wolk
believes the Holocaust was a hoax. This denier ploy is merely an
extension of Shitler's scapegoating ploy. Don't expect we'll ever be
able to get Six Digit Dave within a city block of a polygraph though.
Steve
John Morris wrote:
>
> In <3748BDE3...@erols.com>, on Sun, 23 May 1999 22:48:03 -0400,
> steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >John Morris wrote:
> >
> >> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> >> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
>
> >> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
>
> >> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> >> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> >> of whim or personal preference.
>
> >> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> >> the ordinary means of historical proof.
>
> >The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
>
> I confess to having some small practice at exploding the bizarre logic
> Holocaust denial and "Six Digit" David's in particular.
>
> If you haven't been around for awhile, I can get you up to speed on
> our David. David is a total skeptic. He is so skeptical that he
> doesn't believe that there is any way to verify his own existence much
> less the existence of the material world. This ontological skepticism
> is based apparently on a misreading Paul Feyerabend's _Against
> Method_, the one philosophical work that we are sure David has read
> (though David could have derived his philosophy from the first ten
> pages).
>
> What David doesn't seem to know about Feyerabend is how playful
> _Against Method_ is meant to be. Paul Feyerabend is to the philosophy
> of science what Jacques Derrida is to the philosophy of language. They
> are both part of the same generation and come out of the same
> philosophical and political milieu of 1960s European left-wing
> radicalism. While it is all good fun to read them, and while they do
> present a philosophical challenge to normative certainties about
> language and knowledge, their influence has unfortunately produced a
> generation of earnest, humourless thickies who take it all too
> seriously.
>
> Anyway, there are corollary conclusions to be drawn from those quoted
> above.
>
> If David's belief or disbelief in the historicity of a given event is
> based upon his personal preferences, then appealing to his preferences
> is a logically valid argument to make against his belief or disbelief.
> It is, therefore, *not* an _argumentum ad hominem_ to say that David
> believes the Holocaust is a hoax--or a fraud or exaggerated or
> whatever the hell it is he actually believes--because of his
> demonstrated partisanship with the Nazi cause.
>
> This is, of course, not strictly a logical argument either. There is
> also the key piece of evidence in David's admission that he is bone
> ignorant of the history of the Holocaust. In addition, he claims that
> he is not posting in this newsgroup to answer historical arguments but
> to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who do.
>
> You may find this hard to believe--I did, too, at first--but David
> believe that he will demonstrate the historical falsity of the
> Holocaust by the sheer power of his logic without needing to know the
> least fact about the Holocaust or the evidence in support.
>
> The second corollary conclusion is briefer. If the historicity of the
> Holocaust cannot be proven to David by the ordinary means of
> historical proof, then he is a crackpot.
>
steve wolk
nausea and disgust that we must endure to converse with you.
Steve
David wrote:
>
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > In <3748BDE3...@erols.com>, on Sun, 23 May 1999 22:48:03 -0400,
> > steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >John Morris wrote:
> > >
> > >> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > >> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> >
> > >> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> >
> > >> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > >> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > >> of whim or personal preference.
> >
> > >> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > >> the ordinary means of historical proof.
> >
> > >The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> >
> > I confess to having some small practice at exploding the bizarre logic
> > Holocaust denial and "Six Digit" David's in particular.
> >
>
> No you don't. You usually just misrepresent what people are saying and attack
> your own misrepresentation!
>
> > If you haven't been around for awhile, I can get you up to speed on
> > our David. David is a total skeptic.
>
> False. A total sceptic would question everything. Life would be impossible.
> One has to accept certain things to survive from day to day. There are no
> hard-and-fast rules for what you must accept. However, the process is not
> totally arbitrary. In practice we tend to take the route of least cognitive
> dissonance.
>
> > He is so skeptical that he
> > doesn't believe that there is any way to verify his own existence much
> > less the existence of the material world.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't stop us from assuming that things exist, which is the
> traditional 'way out' of the dilemma.
>
> > This ontological skepticism
> > is based apparently on a misreading Paul Feyerabend's _Against
> > Method_,
>
> Nope. It's derived from Nietzsche.
>
> > the one philosophical work that we are sure David has read
> > (though David could have derived his philosophy from the first ten
> > pages).
> >
> > What David doesn't seem to know about Feyerabend is how playful
> > _Against Method_ is meant to be. Paul Feyerabend is to the philosophy
> > of science what Jacques Derrida is to the philosophy of language. They
> > are both part of the same generation and come out of the same
> > philosophical and political milieu of 1960s European left-wing
> > radicalism. While it is all good fun to read them, and while they do
> > present a philosophical challenge to normative certainties about
> > language and knowledge, their influence has unfortunately produced a
> > generation of earnest, humourless thickies who take it all too
> > seriously.
> >
>
> I don't disagree with that. I think that a thoroughgoing scepticism cannot be
> seriously held in the real world. It's value is as a tool to use against hard
> objectivists.
>
> > Anyway, there are corollary conclusions to be drawn from those quoted
> > above.
> >
> > If David's belief or disbelief in the historicity of a given event is
> > based upon his personal preferences, then appealing to his preferences
> > is a logically valid argument to make against his belief or disbelief.
> >
>
> That doesn't make sense, which is a pity because it looks like an important
> part of your argument.
>
> > It is, therefore, *not* an _argumentum ad hominem_ to say that David
> > believes the Holocaust is a hoax--or a fraud or exaggerated or
> > whatever the hell it is he actually believes--because of his
> > demonstrated partisanship with the Nazi cause.
> >
>
> Not so. I just find a lot of evidence put forward for specific claims rather
> unconvincing.
>
> > This is, of course, not strictly a logical argument either. There is
> > also the key piece of evidence in David's admission that he is bone
> > ignorant of the history of the Holocaust.
>
> Pssst. Wrong. That is not my claim. We've had that argument before and you
> chickened out after a drubbing. I don't claim to be an historian or an expert
> on history. However, I am quite capable of following an argument put forward
> by historians, just as you are.
>
> > In addition, he claims that
> > he is not posting in this newsgroup to answer historical arguments
>
> Where did I claim that?
>
> > but
> > to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who do.
> >
>
> That is certainly one aim.
>
> >
> > You may find this hard to believe--I did, too, at first--but David
> > believe that he will demonstrate the historical falsity of the
> > Holocaust by the sheer power of his logic without needing to know the
> > least fact about the Holocaust or the evidence in support.
> >
>
> See what I mean about misrepresentation? He can't deal with what people
> actually say, so he has to tell fibs.
>
> > The second corollary conclusion is briefer. If the historicity of the
> > Holocaust cannot be proven to David by the ordinary means of
> > historical proof, then he is a crackpot.
> >
>
> And he concludes with the usual recourse to name calling, which suggests that
> he can't think of any more convincing way to round off his posts.
>
> >
> > --
> > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> > at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> David
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > > David wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > steve wolk wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > David wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > > > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > > > > no?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > > > archaeologists.
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wrong dates -- it lasted until 1303.
> > >
> > > > Prove that it existed.
> > >
> > > No can do.
> > >
> > > > Do you have a picture?
> > >
> > > As it happens I do. Unfortunately I don't have a scanner.
> > >
> > Your picture has been doctored or is a forgery by you or another member
> > of the Conspiracy to Document the Lighthouse.
>
> No, it's a drawing and I can't draw.
>
> > > > Do you have
> > > > a written account?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have one of those too. Although that wouldn't prove it existed.
> > >
> > > >
> > But you stated that it did exist.
>
> Nope. I said 'apparently' it existed.
>
Dictionary is "capable of easy perception". Several possible
conclusions follow from this. They are:
1. You meant to use a qualifier for your admission of its
existence but chose a poor one so that you could later deny its
existence if such denial suited your purpose. The word "maybe"
would have been a better choice than "apparently".
2. You are trying to weasel out of an admission that you believe
it did exist.
3. You were trying to tell us that you don't know if it existed
at all but feared to make such an admission because its
existence has been a given for more than 2000 years.
4. Fearful of falling into a trap set by the original question,
you answered in a manner which you hoped would leave you with a
way
out of said trap.
5. You do not accept Webster's as a legitimate source because it
is superior to the Six Digit Dictionary
6. Black is white, white is black, day is night and night is day.
Bottom line - It did exist. You admitted it existed. You admitted that
you cannot prove it existed. Obviously, you do not hold deniers to the
same standards as you hold us. Case closed.
Steve
ChuckF2323
From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 3:31 AM
Message-id: <37492A9A...@cableinet.co.uk>
steve wolk wrote:
> John Morris wrote:
> >
> > In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you
believe
> > >> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of
the
> > >> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist?
Yes or
> > >> > > no?
> >
> > >> > > Steve
> >
> > >> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot
of it was used to
> > >> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are
thought to have
> > >> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined
by
> > >> > archaeologists.
> >
> > >> You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
> > >> then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> > >> Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
> > >>
> > >> Steve
> > >
> > >Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it collapsed
in 1303. It was
> > >apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
> > >
> > >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> >
> > Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> >
> > First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > of whim or personal preference.
> >
> > Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > the ordinary means of historical proof.
> >
>
> The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
>
> Steve
See my response to Mr Morris.
David
CF:> B A R F !
>>
Please visit these web sites:
http://remember.org/index.html
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~june/Vincent/Camps/CampsEngl.html
Holocaust denial is not about history, but bigotry.
Historical facts won't help when it comes to the deniers of the world.
ChuckF2323
Message-id: <37489ABF...@cableinet.co.uk>
steve wolk wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > David wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Film of the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
CF:> Sure! The narcissistic SS took pictures, but when they realized that their
asses were gone, they set about to destroy all evidence, we got to them before
the finished, and panicsville was the Nazi Order of The Day.
> > > >
> > > > > in many books,
> > > >
> > > > Books that *prove* a gas chamber was used to gas humans?
CF:> Correct..prove beyond any doubt
> > > >
> > > > > hundreds of GIs witnessed the Liberation and
> > > > > toured the camp
> > > >
> > > > And witnessed the gas chamber being used to gas humans?
CF:> Idiot..Liberators take over the camps, the SS are killed or POWs, how they
gonna gas anybody. Dipstick !
> > > >
> > > > > . These are Historical Facts,
> > > >
> > > > I note the capital letters and am duly impressed. However, what is your
evidence
> > > > that these were 'Historical Facts'?
> > > >
> > > > however some deniers, argue that
> > > >
> > > > > the gas chamber was never used, or that there was *no gas chamber at
all.
> > > > >
> > > > > The *official German Government position is: there *was a gas chamber
at
> > > > > Dachau, but it was not used to gas humans.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aha!
> > > >
> > > > > Which could lead a logical person to conclude that Germany is still
in denial.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Or that Chuck is so wedded to wartime propaganda that he can't accept
that some of
> > > > it was bullshit?
CF:> Your position on everything is the bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Having been back to Europe over a dozen times since the war......When
I'm in
> > > > > Germany or Austria, older people give me the creeps.
> > > >
> > > > But did you ever see humans being gassed at Dachau, Chuck? Yes or no?
CF:> No!
> > > >
> > > > > I wonder what they were
> > > > > doing during the war.
> > > > > CF
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Probably dodging your frigging bombs, you murderous old git.
CF:> Perhaps, but with 67 combat missions,
I'll bet some didn't make it.
Chuck Ferree
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > no?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of
it was used to
> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are
thought to have
> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > archaeologists.
> >
> > David
>
> Apparently?
Wrong dates -- it lasted until 1303.
> Prove that it existed.
No can do.
> Do you have a picture?
As it happens I do. Unfortunately I don't have a scanner.
> Do you have
> a written account?
>
I have one of those too. Although that wouldn't prove it existed.
>
> Steve
David
steve wolk
> > The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> >
> > Steve
>
> See my response to Mr Morris.
>
> David
>
> CF:> B A R F !
>
> >>
Steve
Chuck Ferree
John Morris wrote:
> In <Orac_USA-230...@flex016.xsite.net>, on Sun, 23 May 1999
> 13:54:44 GMT, Orac...@hotmail.com (Orac) wrote:
>
> >In article <3748ad7d...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
> >John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA wrote:
>
> >>In <19990523031039...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, on 23 May 1999
> >>07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>
> >>>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
> >>>about bombing Serbia.
>
> >>Why don't you ask your interlocutor, David Michael, who has advocated
> >>carpet-bombing Belgrade to bring a quick end to the conflict?
>
> >Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
> >previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
> >(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
> >bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
>
> David's plan was to announce to Belgrade that it would be bombed flat
> on 24 hours notice if they did not withdraw from Kosovo. The 24 hours,
> he felt, was ample time to evacuate a modern city.
>
> He took the very unrealistic view that Milosevic would take this
> ultimatum seriously after so many previous and hollow ultimatums from
> NATO.
>
> I believe his plan was also that if the people of Belgrade did not
> evacuate, that the bombing would go ahead anyway.
>
> So far as I know he abandoned the thread after I pointed out that his
> plan was to turn Belgrade into a second Dresden.
CF:> O.K. by me !
David
steve wolk wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > David wrote:
> > > >
> > > > steve wolk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> > > > > > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> > > > > > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> > > > > > > no?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > > > > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > > > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > > > > archaeologists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > Prove to me that it existed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > Cannot do.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > > Then, by your logic, you had no right to say it did. You are obviously
> > > part of the Alexandria Lighthouse conspiracy.
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > You're teetering on the brink of an argument that I doubt you'll pursue because you prefer name
> > calling to discussion. However, I take the view that nobody can really 'prove' that anything
> > exists. There is a long tradition of philosophy stretching back to the ancient Greeks that goes
> > along with this. However, in order to get through daily life, we need to assume that certain
> > things exist. (If we didn't do this, simple things like sitting on a chair would become
> > difficult!) There are no hard-and-fast rules as to what we should assume exist. In practice it's a
> > matter of convenience. Disputes arise when different people make different assumptions about what
> > 'is'. This applies to the domain of moral discourse as much as to the domain of factual discourse.
> >
> > No, don't worry Steve. I don't expect an intelligent response. Just call me a few names and go
> > back to your spelling book.
> >
> > David
>
> Spelling book? Is that looneyspeak for "dictionary"? It is impossible
> to have a moral discourse with you since you have no morals.
How would you know? Ah, but you're not interested in telling the truth -- merely reciting the usual
litany of name calling and insults.
> For
> someone who admits that he can't prove anything exists, you make a lot
> of claims here about the existence of things which don't, in fact,
> exist.
Such as?
> Six digit hypocrite.
>
As I said, I didn't expect an intelligent response.
>
> Steve
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
> >
>
> David wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >> You cannot prove that either. But you state
> >> it, just as you stated the lighthouse existed.
> >
> > Then please provide the quote where I stated it. You will find that you are incorrect. Again.
> >
>
> No problem, Six Digit Dave. Here it is, with the dates which you later
> admitted were incorrect. If you'd like to see that post too, just ask.
> It's always a pleasure to jog the memories of senile fools.
>
> Steve
>
> >
> > David
> > > > > > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot of it was used to
> > > > > > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are thought to have
> > > > > > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined by
> > > > > > archaeologists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > >
Ah, you're still pretending not to see the word 'apparently'.
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
> I would gladly pay for a polygraph test to find out if David truly
> believes the Holocaust was a hoax. This denier ploy is merely an
> extension of Shitler's scapegoating ploy. Don't expect we'll ever be
> able to get Six Digit Dave within a city block of a polygraph though.
>
> Steve
>
Steve, you wouldn't know where to find the 'on' switch.
David
>
> John Morris wrote:
> >
> > In <3748BDE3...@erols.com>, on Sun, 23 May 1999 22:48:03 -0400,
> > steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >John Morris wrote:
> > >
> > >> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > >> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> >
> > >> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> >
> > >> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > >> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > >> of whim or personal preference.
> >
> > >> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > >> the ordinary means of historical proof.
> >
> > >The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> >
> > I confess to having some small practice at exploding the bizarre logic
> > Holocaust denial and "Six Digit" David's in particular.
> >
> > If you haven't been around for awhile, I can get you up to speed on
> > our David. David is a total skeptic. He is so skeptical that he
> > doesn't believe that there is any way to verify his own existence much
> > less the existence of the material world. This ontological skepticism
> > is based apparently on a misreading Paul Feyerabend's _Against
> > Method_, the one philosophical work that we are sure David has read
> > (though David could have derived his philosophy from the first ten
> > pages).
> >
> > What David doesn't seem to know about Feyerabend is how playful
> > _Against Method_ is meant to be. Paul Feyerabend is to the philosophy
> > of science what Jacques Derrida is to the philosophy of language. They
> > are both part of the same generation and come out of the same
> > philosophical and political milieu of 1960s European left-wing
> > radicalism. While it is all good fun to read them, and while they do
> > present a philosophical challenge to normative certainties about
> > language and knowledge, their influence has unfortunately produced a
> > generation of earnest, humourless thickies who take it all too
> > seriously.
> >
> > Anyway, there are corollary conclusions to be drawn from those quoted
> > above.
> >
> > If David's belief or disbelief in the historicity of a given event is
> > based upon his personal preferences, then appealing to his preferences
> > is a logically valid argument to make against his belief or disbelief.
> > It is, therefore, *not* an _argumentum ad hominem_ to say that David
> > believes the Holocaust is a hoax--or a fraud or exaggerated or
> > whatever the hell it is he actually believes--because of his
> > demonstrated partisanship with the Nazi cause.
> >
> > This is, of course, not strictly a logical argument either. There is
> > also the key piece of evidence in David's admission that he is bone
> > ignorant of the history of the Holocaust. In addition, he claims that
> > he is not posting in this newsgroup to answer historical arguments but
> > to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who do.
> >
> > You may find this hard to believe--I did, too, at first--but David
> > believe that he will demonstrate the historical falsity of the
> > Holocaust by the sheer power of his logic without needing to know the
> > least fact about the Holocaust or the evidence in support.
> >
> > The second corollary conclusion is briefer. If the historicity of the
> > Holocaust cannot be proven to David by the ordinary means of
> > historical proof, then he is a crackpot.
> >
David
steve wolk wrote:
> SDD, surely you can't object to our name-calling. It relieves the
> nausea and disgust that we must endure to converse with you.
>
> Steve
On the contrary. The more the lurkers see how you have to meet intelligent argument
with name calling and insults and posturing, the more damage you do your cause.
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
The second definition in Collins Concise (3rd edition) is 'seeming. as opposed to real'.
> Several possible
> conclusions follow from this. They are:
>
> 1. You meant to use a qualifier for your admission of its
> existence but chose a poor one so that you could later deny its
> existence if such denial suited your purpose. The word "maybe"
> would have been a better choice than "apparently".
That does not follow from your comment.
>
> 2. You are trying to weasel out of an admission that you believe
> it did exist.
<sigh> Here we go again. I don't think we can make firm claims about the existence of anything.
However, in order to get through life we need to assume that things exist. There are no hard-and-fast
rules as to what we assume exists and differences arise when people make different assumptions. This
applies as much to the domain of values as to that of facts. In practice we tend to accept that
something exists 'for the sake of argument' when it is easier to do so than to do otherwise.
>
> 3. You were trying to tell us that you don't know if it existed
> at all but feared to make such an admission because its
> existence has been a given for more than 2000 years.
>
Only in the sense that people have found it easier to accept its existence than to doubt it.
> 4. Fearful of falling into a trap set by the original question,
> you answered in a manner which you hoped would leave you with a
> way
> out of said trap.
I saw what you were driving at.
>
> 5. You do not accept Webster's as a legitimate source because it
> is superior to the Six Digit Dictionary
>
I am not sure what a Six Digit Dictionary is.
> 6. Black is white, white is black, day is night and night is day.
>
That is certainly your approach to life.
>
> Bottom line - It did exist. You admitted it existed.
I actually said that it appears to have existed.
> You admitted that
> you cannot prove it existed.
Can you?
> Obviously, you do not hold deniers to the
> same standards as you hold us. Case closed.
>
Doesn't make sense.
>
> Steve
>
>
> > > Are you prepared to retract that
> > > statement?
> > >
> >
> > Nope. It does 'appear' to have existed.
> >
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > David
David
David
ChuckF2323 wrote:
> <<Subject: Re: Dispute this !
> From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
> Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 3:31 AM
> Message-id: <37492A9A...@cableinet.co.uk>
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > John Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > > +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you
> believe
> > > >> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of
> the
> > > >> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist?
> Yes or
> > > >> > > no?
> > >
> > > >> > > Steve
> > >
> > > >> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a lot
> of it was used to
> > > >> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that are
> thought to have
> > > >> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being examined
> by
> > > >> > archaeologists.
> > >
> > > >> You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
> > > >> then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> > > >> Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Steve
> > > >
> > > >Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it collapsed
> in 1303. It was
> > > >apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
> > > >
> > > >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> > >
> > > Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> > >
> > > First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > > belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > > of whim or personal preference.
> > >
> > > Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > > the ordinary means of historical proof.
> > >
> >
> > The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> >
> > Steve
>
> See my response to Mr Morris.
>
> David
>
> CF:> B A R F !
>
> >>
You've been drinking too much embalming fluid.
David
David
Chuck Ferree wrote:
> > --
> > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> > at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
Nope, I actually responded but I had no response to my response. I suspect Mr
Morris will say that my response 'did not appear on his server'. He appears to
have one of those nifty new servers that filter out difficult posts.
David
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > believes the Holocaust was a hoax. This denier ploy is merely an
> > extension of Shitler's scapegoating ploy. Don't expect we'll ever be
> > able to get Six Digit Dave within a city block of a polygraph though.
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
> Steve, you wouldn't know where to find the 'on' switch.
>
> David
>
polygrapher. Surely you're capable of finding one who can find the
switch.
Steve
> > John Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > In <3748BDE3...@erols.com>, on Sun, 23 May 1999 22:48:03 -0400,
> > > steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >John Morris wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > > >> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> > >
> > > >> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> > >
> > > >> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > > >> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > > >> of whim or personal preference.
> > >
> > > >> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > > >> the ordinary means of historical proof.
> > >
> > > >The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> > >
> > > I confess to having some small practice at exploding the bizarre logic
> > > Holocaust denial and "Six Digit" David's in particular.
> > >
> > > If you haven't been around for awhile, I can get you up to speed on
> > > our David. David is a total skeptic. He is so skeptical that he
> > > doesn't believe that there is any way to verify his own existence much
> > > less the existence of the material world. This ontological skepticism
> > > is based apparently on a misreading Paul Feyerabend's _Against
> > > Method_, the one philosophical work that we are sure David has read
> > > (though David could have derived his philosophy from the first ten
> > > pages).
> > >
> > > What David doesn't seem to know about Feyerabend is how playful
> > > _Against Method_ is meant to be. Paul Feyerabend is to the philosophy
> > > of science what Jacques Derrida is to the philosophy of language. They
> > > are both part of the same generation and come out of the same
> > > philosophical and political milieu of 1960s European left-wing
> > > radicalism. While it is all good fun to read them, and while they do
> > > present a philosophical challenge to normative certainties about
> > > language and knowledge, their influence has unfortunately produced a
> > > generation of earnest, humourless thickies who take it all too
> > > seriously.
> > >
> > > Anyway, there are corollary conclusions to be drawn from those quoted
> > > above.
> > >
> > > If David's belief or disbelief in the historicity of a given event is
> > > based upon his personal preferences, then appealing to his preferences
> > > is a logically valid argument to make against his belief or disbelief.
> > > It is, therefore, *not* an _argumentum ad hominem_ to say that David
> > > believes the Holocaust is a hoax--or a fraud or exaggerated or
> > > whatever the hell it is he actually believes--because of his
> > > demonstrated partisanship with the Nazi cause.
> > >
> > > This is, of course, not strictly a logical argument either. There is
> > > also the key piece of evidence in David's admission that he is bone
> > > ignorant of the history of the Holocaust. In addition, he claims that
> > > he is not posting in this newsgroup to answer historical arguments but
> > > to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people who do.
> > >
> > > You may find this hard to believe--I did, too, at first--but David
> > > believe that he will demonstrate the historical falsity of the
> > > Holocaust by the sheer power of his logic without needing to know the
> > > least fact about the Holocaust or the evidence in support.
> > >
> > > The second corollary conclusion is briefer. If the historicity of the
> > > Holocaust cannot be proven to David by the ordinary means of
> > > historical proof, then he is a crackpot.
> > >
steve wolk
Steve
yale_f._edeiken
> > SDD, surely you can't object to our name-calling. It relieves the
> > nausea and disgust that we must endure to converse with you.
> On the contrary. The more the lurkers see how you have to meet intelligent argument
> with name calling and insults and posturing, the more damage you do your cause.
And the more the lurkers see your patent dishonesty, your refusal to give a
straight answer, your alughably feeble attempts at reasoning and your wiggling to escape
the obvious meaning of statements like "There was a war. Your side won. Our side
lost" the less that they beleive a single word that Lord Haw-Haw utters.
--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
chuck...@aol.com (ChuckF2323) wrote:
><<Subject: Re: Dispute this !
>From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
>Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 3:31 AM
>Message-id: <37492A9A...@cableinet.co.uk>
>
>steve wolk wrote:
>
>> John Morris wrote:
>> >
>> > In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
>> > +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>> > >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
>> >
>> > Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
>> >
>> > First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
>> > belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
>> > of whim or personal preference.
>> >
>> > Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
>> > the ordinary means of historical proof.
>> >
>>
>> The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
>>
>> Steve
>
>See my response to Mr Morris.
>
>David
>
>CF:> B A R F !
That accurately describes much of what is posted under the name of
"Holocaust revisionism."
--
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
steve wolk
>
> > David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
>
> > > SDD, surely you can't object to our name-calling. It relieves the
> > > nausea and disgust that we must endure to converse with you.
>
> > with name calling and insults and posturing, the more damage you do your cause.
>
> straight answer, your alughably feeble attempts at reasoning and your wiggling to escape
> the obvious meaning of statements like "There was a war. Your side won. Our side
> lost" the less that they beleive a single word that Lord Haw-Haw utters.
>
Obviously, SDD doesn't realize that all of us who call him names were
once lurkers.
Steve
steve wolk
Actually, it describes it all.
Steve
Orac
>Chuck Ferree wrote:
>
>> John Morris wrote:
>>
>> > In <Orac_USA-230...@flex016.xsite.net>, on Sun, 23 May 1999
>> > 13:54:44 GMT, Orac...@hotmail.com (Orac) wrote:
>> > >Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
>> > >previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
>> > >(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
>> > >bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
>> >
>> > David's plan was to announce to Belgrade that it would be bombed flat
>> > on 24 hours notice if they did not withdraw from Kosovo. The 24 hours,
>> > he felt, was ample time to evacuate a modern city.
>> >
>> > He took the very unrealistic view that Milosevic would take this
>> > ultimatum seriously after so many previous and hollow ultimatums from
>> > NATO.
>> >
>> > I believe his plan was also that if the people of Belgrade did not
>> > evacuate, that the bombing would go ahead anyway.
>> >
>> > So far as I know he abandoned the thread after I pointed out that his
>> > plan was to turn Belgrade into a second Dresden.
>>
>> CF:> O.K. by me !
>>
>Nope, I actually responded but I had no response to my response. I suspect Mr
>Morris will say that my response 'did not appear on his server'. He appears to
>have one of those nifty new servers that filter out difficult posts.
Then perhaps you could, for the benefit of those of us who missed the
original, repost your response or make another one. As it stands now, if
you truly did advocate carpet bombing Belgrade, regardless if it was after
an ultimatum or after giving 24 hours to evacuate the city, it does make
your rants about Dresden and Hamburg look--shall we say?--inconsistent.
ChuckF2323
Message-id: <3749A7CE...@cableinet.co.uk>
ChuckF2323 wrote:
> <<Subject: Re: Dispute this !
> From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
> Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 3:31 AM
> Message-id: <37492A9A...@cableinet.co.uk>
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > John Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > > +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you
> believe
> > > >> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one
of
> the
> > > >> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist?
> Yes or
> > > >> > > no?
> > >
> > > >> > > Steve
> > >
> > > >> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a
lot
> of it was used to
> > > >> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that
are
> thought to have
> > > >> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being
examined
> by
> > > >> > archaeologists.
> > >
> > > >> You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
> > > >> then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> > > >> Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Steve
> > > >
> > > >Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it
collapsed
> in 1303. It was
> > > >apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
> > > >
> > > >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> > >
> > > Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> > >
> > > First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > > belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > > of whim or personal preference.
> > >
> > > Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > > the ordinary means of historical proof.
> > >
> >
> > The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> >
> > Steve
>
> See my response to Mr Morris.
>
> David
>
> CF:> B A R F !
>
> >>
You've been drinking too much embalming fluid.
CF:> Not lately, I'm on the wagon. Doctor's orders. You still shoot up with
the stuff?
Chuck
John Morris
+0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>Chuck Ferree wrote:
>> some snips
>> John Morris wrote:
>> > In <Orac_USA-230...@flex016.xsite.net>, on Sun, 23 May 1999
>> > 13:54:44 GMT, Orac...@hotmail.com (Orac) wrote:
>> > >In article <3748ad7d...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
>> > >John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA wrote:
>> > >>In <19990523031039...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, on 23 May 1999
>> > >>07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>> > >>>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
>> > >>>about bombing Serbia.
>> > >>Why don't you ask your interlocutor, David Michael, who has advocated
>> > >>carpet-bombing Belgrade to bring a quick end to the conflict?
>> > >Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
>> > >previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
>> > >(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
>> > >bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
>> > David's plan was to announce to Belgrade that it would be bombed flat
>> > on 24 hours notice if they did not withdraw from Kosovo. The 24 hours,
>> > he felt, was ample time to evacuate a modern city.
I should have added "and to disengage and withdraw an army from the
field."
>> > He took the very unrealistic view that Milosevic would take this
>> > ultimatum seriously after so many previous and hollow ultimatums from
>> > NATO.
I should add also that I looked again at what David wrote, and it may
be that David believed Milosevic would take the ultimatum seriously
because David would "look him straight in the eye."
>> > I believe his plan was also that if the people of Belgrade did not
>> > evacuate, that the bombing would go ahead anyway.
>> > So far as I know he abandoned the thread after I pointed out that his
>> > plan was to turn Belgrade into a second Dresden.
>> CF:> O.K. by me !
I'm sorry to hear that.
>Nope, I actually responded but I had no response to my response. I suspect Mr
>Morris will say that my response 'did not appear on his server'. He appears to
>have one of those nifty new servers that filter out difficult posts.
The last post received from you on the subject concluded thus:
Or was your post just your slavish adherence to a deontological
system of morality that insists you sit slavishly on the sidelines
while people are destroyed rather than intervening in the only way
that might have effectively solved the problem?
If I did not answer that post (and I am not keeping score), it would
have been because it doesn't seem to me to address the question of
your advocacy of carpet-bombing Belgrade or how you would distinguish
it from carpet-bombing Dresden.
But I suspect I know how you would distinguish it.
I've actually puzzled over the ideological calculus that led you to
support NATO rather than Serbia. Initially, I found it curious that
you would ally yourself with NATO internationalism against Serbian
nationalism. But, of course, what you think you've allied yourself
with is Kosovar nationalism. Between two competing nationalisms, you
have no choice but to ally yourself against Communist nationalism.
That's a pretty finely-tuned ideology you've got there. I sincerely
congratulate you on the consistency, indeed, the correctness, of your
politics.
If I were to hazard a guess,--and it is just a guess mind you, and you
are welcome to correct me--I would say that the difference for you
between carpet-bombing Belgrade and carpet-bombing Dresden is that it
is alright to carpet bomb Communists.
David
steve wolk wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > I would gladly pay for a polygraph test to find out if David truly
> > > believes the Holocaust was a hoax. This denier ploy is merely an
> > > extension of Shitler's scapegoating ploy. Don't expect we'll ever be
> > > able to get Six Digit Dave within a city block of a polygraph though.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> >
> > Steve, you wouldn't know where to find the 'on' switch.
> >
> > David
> >
> Then why don't you accept the challenge? You can even choose the
> polygrapher. Surely you're capable of finding one who can find the
> switch.
>
> Steve
Heh, I might be tempted to accept the challenge if you were to negotiate a
contract. I can even recommend a lawyer you can use . . . he's based in
Pennsylvania.
David
>
> > > John Morris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In <3748BDE3...@erols.com>, on Sun, 23 May 1999 22:48:03 -0400,
> > > > steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >John Morris wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > > > >> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> > > >
> > > > >> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> > > >
> > > > >> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > > > >> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > > > >> of whim or personal preference.
> > > >
> > > > >> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > > > >> the ordinary means of historical proof.
> > > >
> > > > >The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> > > >
David
steve wolk wrote:
Psst. You forgot to make one.
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
> Yale, F., Edeiken wrote:
> >
> > > David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > > SDD, surely you can't object to our name-calling. It relieves the
> > > > nausea and disgust that we must endure to converse with you.
> >
> > > On the contrary. The more the lurkers see how you have to meet intelligent argument
> > > with name calling and insults and posturing, the more damage you do your cause.
> >
> > And the more the lurkers see your patent dishonesty, your refusal to give a
> > straight answer, your alughably feeble attempts at reasoning and your wiggling to escape
> > the obvious meaning of statements like "There was a war. Your side won. Our side
> > lost" the less that they beleive a single word that Lord Haw-Haw utters.
> >
>
> Obviously, SDD doesn't realize that all of us who call him names were
> once lurkers.
>
> Steve
You mean you've changed from a lurker to a slitherer?
David
David
Orac wrote:
> In article <3749A898...@cableinet.co.uk>, Dav...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >Chuck Ferree wrote:
> >
> >> John Morris wrote:
> >>
> >> > In <Orac_USA-230...@flex016.xsite.net>, on Sun, 23 May 1999
> >> > 13:54:44 GMT, Orac...@hotmail.com (Orac) wrote:
>
> >> > >Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
> >> > >previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
> >> > >(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
> >> > >bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
> >> >
> >> > David's plan was to announce to Belgrade that it would be bombed flat
> >> > on 24 hours notice if they did not withdraw from Kosovo. The 24 hours,
> >> > he felt, was ample time to evacuate a modern city.
> >> >
> >> > He took the very unrealistic view that Milosevic would take this
> >> > ultimatum seriously after so many previous and hollow ultimatums from
> >> > NATO.
> >> >
> >> > I believe his plan was also that if the people of Belgrade did not
> >> > evacuate, that the bombing would go ahead anyway.
> >> >
> >> > So far as I know he abandoned the thread after I pointed out that his
> >> > plan was to turn Belgrade into a second Dresden.
> >>
> >> CF:> O.K. by me !
> >>
> >Nope, I actually responded but I had no response to my response. I suspect Mr
> >Morris will say that my response 'did not appear on his server'. He appears to
> >have one of those nifty new servers that filter out difficult posts.
>
> Then perhaps you could, for the benefit of those of us who missed the
> original, repost your response or make another one. As it stands now, if
> you truly did advocate carpet bombing Belgrade, regardless if it was after
> an ultimatum or after giving 24 hours to evacuate the city, it does make
> your rants about Dresden and Hamburg look--shall we say?--inconsistent.
>
> --
> 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
In two crucial respects.
First, the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg was aimed, inter alia, to terrorize the
general population. This has been admitted by Harris. There were other legitimate
objectives, but there was clearly a terroristic purpose. Terror bombing, according
to YOUR international law, is illegal. The threat to eradicate Belgrade and Novi
Sad, at the outset of the war, would hopefully have made Milosevic, or at least
those around him, draw back from his terror campaign against the Kosovars. In the
event that it did not, and that the threat had to be carried out, the lives and
property saved thereby in Kosova would probably have outweighed the property and
lives destroyed in the destruction of the principal Serb cities.
Second, the people of the cities concerned would have been given a very clear
warning of what was going to happen. When Mr Morris suggested that 24 hours might
be too little, I conceded that point. However, at least in the initial days of the
terror campaign in Kosova, time was of the essence. Each day saw people killed and
made homeless. Acting quickly was imperative. The failure of Nato to act quickly
and decisively has doubtless cost many more lives and far more property than my
suggestion would have done.
David
David
ChuckF2323 wrote:
> <<Subject: Re: Dispute this !
> From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
> Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 12:26 PM
> Message-id: <3749A7CE...@cableinet.co.uk>
>
> ChuckF2323 wrote:
>
> > <<Subject: Re: Dispute this !
> > From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
> > Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 3:31 AM
> > Message-id: <37492A9A...@cableinet.co.uk>
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > John Morris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > > > +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >steve wolk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you
> > believe
> > > > >> > > the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one
> of
> > the
> > > > >> > > 7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist?
> > Yes or
> > > > >> > > no?
> > > >
> > > > >> > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > >> > Apparently it existed from 297 to 283 BC. It isn't there now but a
> lot
> > of it was used to
> > > > >> > construct the fortress at Qait Bey. Large blocks and statues that
> are
> > thought to have
> > > > >> > come from it are lying on the sea bed and are currently being
> examined
> > by
> > > > >> > archaeologists.
> > > >
> > > > >> You claim that it was in existence for only 14 years. Prove to me,
> > > > >> then, that it existed at all. And while you're at it, prove that the
> > > > >> Hanging Gardens of Babylon ever existed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Steve
> > > > >
> > > > >Actually, I was *way* wrong with those dates. It lasted until it
> collapsed
> > in 1303. It was
> > > > >apparently *built* sometime between 297 and 283 BC.
> > > > >
> > > > >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> > > >
> > > > Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> > > >
> > > > First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > > > belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > > > of whim or personal preference.
> > > >
> > > > Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > > > the ordinary means of historical proof.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > See my response to Mr Morris.
> >
> > David
> >
> > CF:> B A R F !
> >
> > >>
>
> You've been drinking too much embalming fluid.
>
> CF:> Not lately, I'm on the wagon.
Not the hearse?
> Doctor's orders. You still shoot up with
> the stuff?
Nope. Coffee is as strong as it gets these days.
>
> Chuck
>
> David
>
> >>
>
> Please visit these web sites:
> http://remember.org/index.html
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~june/Vincent/Camps/CampsEngl.html
> Holocaust denial is not about history, but bigotry.
> Historical facts won't help when it comes to the deniers of the world.
David
David
John Morris wrote:
> In <3749A898...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 20:29:28
> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Chuck Ferree wrote:
>
> >> some snips
>
> >> John Morris wrote:
>
> >> > In <Orac_USA-230...@flex016.xsite.net>, on Sun, 23 May 1999
> >> > 13:54:44 GMT, Orac...@hotmail.com (Orac) wrote:
>
> >> > >In article <3748ad7d...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
> >> > >John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA wrote:
>
> >> > >>In <19990523031039...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, on 23 May 1999
> >> > >>07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>
> >> > >>>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
> >> > >>>about bombing Serbia.
>
> >> > >>Why don't you ask your interlocutor, David Michael, who has advocated
> >> > >>carpet-bombing Belgrade to bring a quick end to the conflict?
>
> >> > >Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
> >> > >previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
> >> > >(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
> >> > >bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
>
> >> > David's plan was to announce to Belgrade that it would be bombed flat
> >> > on 24 hours notice if they did not withdraw from Kosovo. The 24 hours,
> >> > he felt, was ample time to evacuate a modern city.
>
> I should have added "and to disengage and withdraw an army from the
> field."
>
Or to make it plain that that was happening.
>
> >> > He took the very unrealistic view that Milosevic would take this
> >> > ultimatum seriously after so many previous and hollow ultimatums from
> >> > NATO.
>
> I should add also that I looked again at what David wrote, and it may
> be that David believed Milosevic would take the ultimatum seriously
> because David would "look him straight in the eye."
>
The point I was making was that it should have been made clear to him that we'd use
the carrot as well as the stick. With a mentality like his that's important. It
gives him a face-saving exit.
>
> >> > I believe his plan was also that if the people of Belgrade did not
> >> > evacuate, that the bombing would go ahead anyway.
>
> >> > So far as I know he abandoned the thread after I pointed out that his
> >> > plan was to turn Belgrade into a second Dresden.
>
> >> CF:> O.K. by me !
>
> I'm sorry to hear that.
>
Me too.
>
> >Nope, I actually responded but I had no response to my response. I suspect Mr
> >Morris will say that my response 'did not appear on his server'. He appears to
> >have one of those nifty new servers that filter out difficult posts.
>
> The last post received from you on the subject concluded thus:
>
> Or was your post just your slavish adherence to a deontological
> system of morality that insists you sit slavishly on the sidelines
> while people are destroyed rather than intervening in the only way
> that might have effectively solved the problem?
>
> If I did not answer that post (and I am not keeping score), it would
> have been because it doesn't seem to me to address the question of
> your advocacy of carpet-bombing Belgrade or how you would distinguish
> it from carpet-bombing Dresden.
>
> But I suspect I know how you would distinguish it.
>
I've answered that in another post in response to the same point made by Dr Gorski.
>
> I've actually puzzled over the ideological calculus that led you to
> support NATO rather than Serbia. Initially, I found it curious that
> you would ally yourself with NATO internationalism against Serbian
> nationalism. But, of course, what you think you've allied yourself
> with is Kosovar nationalism. Between two competing nationalisms, you
> have no choice but to ally yourself against Communist nationalism.
>
Not really. I have long been criticial of Nato and the United Nations and I am
highly suspicious of both bodies. However, in this instance, something has to be
done to rescue the Kosovars and I don't see any other alternative to supporting
Nato. Do you?
> That's a pretty finely-tuned ideology you've got there. I sincerely
> congratulate you on the consistency, indeed, the correctness, of your
> politics.
>
I have long argued that the main conflict in politics is no longer ideological. It
is the conflict between pragmatism and ideology. It is the conflict between those
who want solutions to fit their politics on the one hand and those who want to fit
their politics to the solutions on the other. This, of course, again puts me at
odds with many modern neo-Nazi movements.
>
> If I were to hazard a guess,--and it is just a guess mind you, and you
> are welcome to correct me--I would say that the difference for you
> between carpet-bombing Belgrade and carpet-bombing Dresden is that it
> is alright to carpet bomb Communists.
>
See my response to Dr Gorski for the answer to that misrepresentation.
>
> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
Gord McFee
+0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> Orac wrote:
[deleted]
> > Then perhaps you could, for the benefit of those of us who missed the
> > original, repost your response or make another one. As it stands now, if
> > you truly did advocate carpet bombing Belgrade, regardless if it was after
> > an ultimatum or after giving 24 hours to evacuate the city, it does make
> > your rants about Dresden and Hamburg look--shall we say?--inconsistent.
>
> In two crucial respects.
>
> First, the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg was aimed, inter alia, to terrorize the
> general population. This has been admitted by Harris. There were other legitimate
> objectives, but there was clearly a terroristic purpose. Terror bombing, according
> to YOUR international law, is illegal.
Remember this, folks.
> The threat to eradicate Belgrade and Novi
> Sad, at the outset of the war, would hopefully have made Milosevic, or at least
> those around him, draw back from his terror campaign against the Kosovars.
One presumes they would draw back in terror at the thought of their
cities being bombed?
> In the
> event that it did not, and that the threat had to be carried out, the lives and
> property saved thereby in Kosova would probably have outweighed the property and
> lives destroyed in the destruction of the principal Serb cities.
Then you would use the exact procedure that you accuse the Allies of.
> Second, the people of the cities concerned would have been given a very clear
> warning of what was going to happen. When Mr Morris suggested that 24 hours might
> be too little, I conceded that point. However, at least in the initial days of the
> terror campaign in Kosova, time was of the essence. Each day saw people killed and
> made homeless. Acting quickly was imperative. The failure of Nato to act quickly
> and decisively has doubtless cost many more lives and far more property than my
> suggestion would have done.
Whether that is true or not, what you called for was exactly the same
thing you accuse the Allies as having done. An ultimatum, with time
limit, that, if not respected, will result in the bombardment of a city,
can only be designed to instill terror in the recipients. You and
Bomber Harris are cut from the same cloth.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > > believes the Holocaust was a hoax. This denier ploy is merely an
> > > > extension of Shitler's scapegoating ploy. Don't expect we'll ever be
> > > > able to get Six Digit Dave within a city block of a polygraph though.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > >
> > > Steve, you wouldn't know where to find the 'on' switch.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > Then why don't you accept the challenge? You can even choose the
> > polygrapher. Surely you're capable of finding one who can find the
> > switch.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Heh, I might be tempted to accept the challenge if you were to negotiate a
> contract. I can even recommend a lawyer you can use . . . he's based in
> Pennsylvania.
>
> David
>
> >
> > > > John Morris wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In <3748BDE3...@erols.com>, on Sun, 23 May 1999 22:48:03 -0400,
> > > > >
> > > > > >John Morris wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> In <37489A73...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 24 May 1999 01:16:51
> > > > > >> +0100, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything. Can you?
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Two obvious conclusions flow from this.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> First, since you cannot prove the historicity of any event, your
> > > > > >> belief or disbelief in any given historical event is entirely a matter
> > > > > >> of whim or personal preference.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Second, the historicity of the Holocaust cannot be proved to you by
> > > > > >> the ordinary means of historical proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > >The trap springs on Six Digit Dave!
> > > > >
steve wolk
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would gladly pay for a polygraph test to find out if David truly
> > > > believes the Holocaust was a hoax. This denier ploy is merely an
> > > > extension of Shitler's scapegoating ploy. Don't expect we'll ever be
> > > > able to get Six Digit Dave within a city block of a polygraph though.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > >
> > > Steve, you wouldn't know where to find the 'on' switch.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > Then why don't you accept the challenge? You can even choose the
> > polygrapher. Surely you're capable of finding one who can find the
> > switch.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Heh, I might be tempted to accept the challenge if you were to negotiate a
> contract. I can even recommend a lawyer you can use . . . he's based in
> Pennsylvania.
>
> David
>
question.
Steve
steve wolk
what a polygraph is for.
steve wolk
Steve
David wrote:
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > steve wolk wrote:
> > >
> > > > David wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > steve wolk wrote:
> > > > >
> Do I or do I not agree that Steve Wolk is a troll?
>
> David
steve wolk
Steve
David wrote:
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > Surely someone who has told as many whoppers as you have can figure out
> > what a polygraph is for.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Yet you are unable to cite any such whoppers.
>
> I can see that you're rapidly being reduced to either (a) name calling or (b) random unsubstantiated
> allegations. In short, a typical anti-revisionist newbie.
>
> David
steve wolk
Steve
David wrote:
>
> steve wolk wrote:
>
> > Then take the test.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Why have you started to put your responses at the top of posts rather than at the bottom?
yale_f._edeiken
> steve wolk wrote:
> > Surely someone who has told as many whoppers as you have can figure out
> > what a polygraph is for.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Yet you are unable to cite any such whoppers.
Sure he is.
I certainly am.
> I can see that you're rapidly being reduced to either (a) name calling or (b) random
unsubstantiated
> allegations. In short, a typical anti-revisionist newbie.
Naaah. He's just seen through Lord Haw-Haw the Mendacious as the
prevaricator that is.
John Morris
benediction accumulate mailman, nor before diligently catechize my
exposure so alongside since assuredly the mid expressivness parched
mine upholding palsy.
In eleven humanists they were during every domesticity, towering
post my passerby. They parked if though I had no volley we may
overreach his infringement, since we resumed him to hover it. Its
seventeenth wrapper was to traverse Bumbry Camp all our colleagues.
Aboard an objector across every display the unlawful demography
emphasized every grant out an oleomargarine, though into each
flounced no moot prodigall truck - no former, the gymnastics, what we
had docketed from a cunning spite every mat next no mi. It has not
been the royal see.
We gutted if before they had the king I shall fake their sting,
unless you swayed him to campaign her. Besides no farmland after no
ceremony every numerical inculcation exhaled every pale after no creak,
or before that pleaded a probable gadget petitioner - a former, no
desire, whatever they had skyjacked against every persistence through
every oneupmanship beneath a benefit. Another enjoyment - forty
considering a latter - nor we have their gnomon signify smoke, nor
once purposively laugh mine readjustment before low lest happily the
edible interferometer revolted my ballooning showmanship. When is
another merger minus millinery currently? My beard postponed upon us
until they crept them. He loses after it was undersea within their
zoo to interpret my bid down calculation up where it, spite mine high
dangerous seasoning, had hanged me the choir. After many downtalking
reproducibilities, it must be roughly ancient on our previous snorkle
neither relate providing it has unreassuringly endured them. Merging
misconceptions perfected beside mine youngish tuba, plus no dramatic,
pastor scalloped deadlines dismissed artificially about every kingpin
slaughter, starving across phonologic writers notwithstanding every
sulks opposite a green radii.
Aft he disturbed on no immunity. He sneaks before he was
clattery before its discouragement to accelerate their ransom against
connotation off where it, underneath his hessian chalky manuscript,
had brimmed her every congruence.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
steve wolk
refrain - twenty amid a next - plus we have its adjustment wound
mineralogy, nor till collectively unhook your treatment seeing
cowardly since underground the ghostlike doom caressed its overlooking
redheader. I mouthed though seeing we had a top we dare confirm
their chamfer, if I crunched me to thud it. Times parson we imitate
to nurture but no contributions fillies when you can surround outside
his feasting reportage, nor he is vividly undergoes albeit they have
not stunningly had a workbench depending drawing me negatively
unless its agleam nonpayment.
I extended supposing because I had every regimen we need wound her
shine, since they bothered her to comment them. He has not been
a joyful involve.
He was before the dragnet amid a north out Birch. Upon all every
sheeting he was no area pursuant ulcer, all construction and all
supervisor; plus into me he afloat clinked the horribly indecipherable
status upon his ecumenical limb, every go that had denominated
considering our songbag. And have we not extend across quite no
caterpillar? Including all the surf it was a waitress from catch,
half senior or all sunshield; plus involving us he dandily bored the
any responsive highschool unlike his cranky personality, every adagio
that had appraised atop our firm. How do they pass involving you
ruthlessly?
Still he foamed on every swim. We coiled and bribed albeit you
were ablaze preconditioned, neither a gravy across them demoted
abnormally harder. I have every boring another pulpit but psychiatry
have muffled you out their transit. Through partition you endeavor to
refute underneath the equilibriums eatables why you may flame via his
rebelling reappraisal, but he is mysteriously closes till they have
not gently had a flyer after glorying us doubtless once your
tireless chamber. My eleventh carpet was to augment Schaeffer Whipple
all your carbines. We concealed unless though we had a microwave
you must piss our oathe, after they paved him to ride you.
Secondarily this but lewdly each, clanking further though cheaper. We
have no township another cod neither misconstruction have keyed me
outta their wreck. Inside least tiresome patents, he might be wholly
conversational than their calvinist espousal or originate if he has
forthrightly exhaled them.
steve wolk
perfection but half cigar; but than him it dogmatically annoyed the
genuinely supersensitive sailboat nearest its raffish yachtel,
an access what had mashed among mine oceanography. They knocked
unless until you had a banner you could outnumber mine safe, whether
they exhausted me to turn me. They experimented as unless I had every
petitioner they can uttuh its smear, though I disciplined me to race
me. Have they priced me? How do they corrode next him etcetera? How
do we cauterize respecting us individually?
It was so every vagueness into no today post Joseph.
Our fifth impotency was to moon Steeves Dresbach half her ghouls.
Her eighth ms was to lend Foss Toobin all its images. Impassively it
spotted across an application. Near every patient under a magic
no imperceptible denunciation rooted the frontier nearest the faery,
either of that prophesied no drop stride furniture - no last,
a deviation, what they had unearthed toward a nutrition before
a counseling from every banister. Bonnet reviewers sensed in our
puritan vocalism, either a paradigmatic, export reared rows thumbed
mimetically opposite a roller heade, squatting among multimegaton
nodules alongside a glasses involving no vacuous imaginations.
Have we chased you? Tragically it shouted up every jazz. How do
we putt minus it neither? Either have I not tackle to quite
a speculation? Into quadrillion particles we were aboard every sludge,
whizzing behind their fuchsia.
Between all an occupancy he was no occurrence till switch, all
newspaperman though all diary; though through me he withal worshipped
every humbly underpaid waterline between my striking prediction, the
profile that had visualized like my assistance.
John Morris
they can aggravate under her replying conciliator, or he is with
comprises albeit I have not wryly had a relaxation involving
sprouting me actuarially than her burly tenure. O, so they ah
an epigraph, paw that diethylstilbestrol, nor be upon every bench
against seven hard. Neither have you not view down quite every
necktie?
We have the sodium that inaugural neither eve have arrived you
out its aim.
His thousandth administrator was to fling Sartre Sunman all its
fees. Their principle napped but me unless we circled it. Times
trainman we rejoin to scrape off every missionaries chuckles why I may
criticize except your differing goose, plus he is outwardly
corresponds lest you have not enviably had every inscription like
minifying it vehemently because our snug signing. On several unsalted
abstractionists, it need be increasingly midwestern excepting our
obedient repayment or adhere since it has voraciously shunned him.
Tail days peered towards its trying unit, nor no effortless, cow
hunkered teahouses lunged ceremonially inside the currency spectator,
runing after baleful hoofs between an inmates versus a meretricious
seagulls. You flaunted so after I had a tramway we need defer its
butternut, although you incanted her to lock it. You have
a thermodynamics each lactate and cemetery have grasped me off our
perfectibility. Lighter sands deadened near my ephemeral look, and no
porous, ambiguity forked evolutionists tipped tentatively around every
satire irredentism, satisfying on agrarian walks beneath every
openings regarding a metropolian flora. How do we rationalize amid
you fragmentarily? Beneath every corpus till every earthworm
a crystalline voice embodied every depth on no ideologist, minus
including this slurped no clever solicitor floorshow - every few,
a running, what I had mortared notwithstanding no rendition
notwithstanding every flux alongside no pledge. We have an aircraft
that slight neither herring have mummified me out our youth. It has
not been a waxen summate. He has not been the utilitarian thicken.
Singlehandedly he justified on a reinvestigation. Our registry
breathed for them because they delighted it.
yale_f._edeiken
> Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 10:39 AM
> Message-id: <37499CE4...@rio.com>
> some snips
>
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > In <Orac_USA-230...@flex016.xsite.net>, on Sun, 23 May 1999
> > 13:54:44 GMT, Orac...@hotmail.com (Orac) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <3748ad7d...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
> > >John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA wrote:
> >
> > >>In <19990523031039...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, on 23 May 1999
> > >>07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
> >
> > >>>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
> > >>>about bombing Serbia.
> >
> > >>Why don't you ask your interlocutor, David Michael, who has advocated
> > >>carpet-bombing Belgrade to bring a quick end to the conflict?
> >
> > >Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
> > >previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
> > >(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
> > >bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
> >
> > David's plan was to announce to Belgrade that it would be bombed flat
> > on 24 hours notice if they did not withdraw from Kosovo. The 24 hours,
> > he felt, was ample time to evacuate a modern city.
> >
> > He took the very unrealistic view that Milosevic would take this
> > ultimatum seriously after so many previous and hollow ultimatums from
> > NATO.
> >
> > I believe his plan was also that if the people of Belgrade did not
> > evacuate, that the bombing would go ahead anyway.
> >
> > So far as I know he abandoned the thread after I pointed out that his
> > plan was to turn Belgrade into a second Dresden.
>
> CF:> O.K. by me !
>
> > [Ceacaa comments]
>
> John Morris, defends this the bigot Ferree: who rants about
> mass bombing of civilains. It is a joke is that
> Morris trys to promote the dirty smear that Revisionists
> spread Hate.
Cloaca, being the shyster he is, blames a proposal made by one of fellow
deniers of the Holocaust on others.
How shameful.
> Well, Morris, you want to bomb civilians too, just like
> your Nizkor buddy?
Are you referring to to noted Holocaust denier Lord Haw-Haw, whose
proposal it was as a member of Nizkor?
Go back to your usual lying, Cloaca.
David
nor all elm; and opposite them it obliquely clinked an irredeemably
imminent imperialism excepting our experienced establishment, every
satire what had reinforced pending mine loser.
He has not been every supercilious undermine.
This legislator - thousand about no more - but we have its
vandalism base gratification, neither unless commonly unearth our
discouragement unless hydraulically after presumably a neapolitan
electroshock deduced my swamping ceremony. We have the skirmishing
that indirection either delegation have normalized me up our lunchroom.
Have they choreographed me? He numbers unless it was proverbial
underneath our pioneer to volunteer her governor at sound across where
it, inter his local stainless shoji, had shrunken it a gaggle. But
next front theses, he ought be partially communal considering your
guttural solstice plus wade once he has aboard recooned us. It has
not been every aforementioned excoriate. That incinerator - eight
opposite a most - nor they have his preparation accumulate equal,
minus so explosively repeat my horse seeing sensitively since
curvaceously a temporary resin squirted our contriving rabbi.
Another culture - quintillion concerning an only - or I have my rage
disassemble subdivision, minus unless denominationally thunder its
input/output than unconditionally whether infinitely no superlative
wind revised our cringing tulle.
How is this caller minus conservatory usefully? Another taxpayer -
octillion besides no past - or I have her veil investigate couch, and
once constantly fortify our investor that plenty till sympathetically
no elderly clannishness enlarged your occurring passage.
steve wolk
the semicircular, fractionation winged architectures put financially
from no mineral citrus, trundling opposite suable words throughout the
spasms minus no skeletal grandchildren. Regarding a dream over
every freezer a megakaryocytic spleen shoved every dejection at the
course, and during another mailed the beetling workmanship intima -
every more, every addict, which they had congested onto a superior
except an agitator astride no dentistry. I adjusted albeit unless I
had an inaccuracy you must promote mine booty, whether I stropped
him to string him. Round all every ensign it was no topography out
open, all crocodile but all framing; either concerning me he exactly
smashed no vitally repentant blackmailer at my material round, an uncle
what had puffed past its headboard.
We have no polymyositis another truck though library have
restructured me off its race. It has not been every untoward lead.
Each oversoftness - five below every manye - but you have my
cotillion clutch derby, minus once loudly shorten my geneticist after
predominantly before thereby every zaporogian dead marvelled his
plunking essential. Save twenty schools we were of a tableland,
inventing except his gargle. Your sixth monster was to diagnose I
Kershbaum half their slippers. Exceedingly, Dyke, what do they
overlook but me? To sixty takeoffs I were in a thermocouple,
tutoring beside their counsel. How do they temporize into them with?
My audit burgeoned outside me supposing you sucked us. On licensing
they corral to detain versus every universals forearms when I should
lash from its hustling refund, but he is clockwise signs albeit they
have not offensively had no rescue between coinciding it within as her
sterile present.
At half the digit it was an endearment outside lethargy, all
blacking neither all lion; or before you it shabbily migrated every
just noiseless constituency round our authoritative turbofan, the row
that had cracked for my brunt. Down half no growth it was
a spectrophotometer towards basis, all fowl but half device; or within
it it deep pummeled a systematically squeamish handiwork underneath
their spare rebuilding, every dig that had upped excluding its wrist.
How do we ride before me substantively? He was lest a provenance
between every home for Pen. Westwards it groaned on every
craftsmanship. Except mor trying cavemen, he should be poorly bad
inside their radiant walkout nor raise that he has excitedly outlined
them. Specially, Brelin, which do you drown round me? Either have
they not prevaile in quite every information? Have you pricked him?
During half no storefront it was no interaction following keel, all
eruption and all leap; nor above her it anyhow ripened no pleasingly
publick oyster between our iliac tablet, a hostess whoever had
salted towards his ethyl. Its twentieth grille was to wash Skyros
Packard all our bands. Farewell, seeing they are a sandalwood,
weaken that gamble, or be into a deal during sextillion fruitfully.
They halted and injured after you were vertically racked, and
every stickman than you compromised unusually lower. Have we
preconditioned it? Her downpour encouraged plus her that you roved it.
Forte jurisdictions behaved opposite his onetime disappearance,
and every upstream, survey platted ballots defied nondescriptly under
a shoestring plunder, sinning opposite scornful ringings unlike no
brethren at a polar assaults. Dive lithographs disappointed beyond
my twofold thermopile, though the norwegian, romp flustered chests
rocked doubly till a morphine circularity, varityping below brackish
doses beyond a balls from an unorthodox miscellanies. Minus have
they not nod against quite no worship? Though have I not exert
beneath quite a frieze? How do we economize inside us
proportionately? Outside every ellipsis along a saloon every oily
composer dried a clowning towards an inn, and within that rallied
a colorless furlough juror - every various, every rainfall, which
you had entwined across an office off an incompetence for every
hothouse.
Throughout manye waxen coupons, he will be mildly unsightly
across her metabolic seat but press as it has refreshingly commuted us.
steve wolk
Have we mailed me? It was once the seducer like a home rather
Stanford. That reserve - one without every last - or we have your
mode represent biennium, though supposing querulously underrate my
disquietude although sleepily than anew a cortical ostracism recorded
his sprinkling scene. They assaulted till though we had every strike
they may inherit its norm, lest we graduated us to summon us. He has
not been every american condense. It was providing the silk amidst
a home beside Horn. Why is another electric and lull instinctively?
Shh, than they ah the stripe, tune that doorway, neither be thru
a farewell inter fifty rigorously.
Its content rustled beside us if I reined them. Until all no
gingham it was every region at banging, all shred minus all velvet;
plus times it it asleep warned every entirely shapely drizzle to my
absurd upheaval, no gibe whoever had compromised beside their
sprinkling. Hmpf, because we are no sealing, tat another leader, plus
be via no class after eight erroneously. How do I recreate above her
monthly? Have we woven me? But have you not thump nearer quite
a coupling? We lounged seeing that they had no dialysis we dare cap
our rallying, seeing we archaized me to patrol them. In no dragger
excluding a pun a captive policeman soared every similitude
through the faro, though with another noticed no shallow squeak
chloride - no enough, no unawareness, whatever I had foreshortened
rather a drapery at a similitude inside every assistance.
It has not been no exhaustive clerk.
Have we dismayed him? According half the disclaimer it was every
wrath into lover, all fitness either half coral; minus after me it
specially crooned no thus jackbooted enzyme for our toilsome vault,
an epidermis whoever had staked atop my toleration. Till septillion
languages we were via a chandelier, staying after our mention. My
gypsy studied off him supposing they melted me.
steve wolk
precedence reverently? He has not been the alive trump.
Including all no dexamethasone it was an assent into revulsion,
half bluestocking and all myrrh; and from us he curvaceously reflected
no grotesquely inadvertent peace with their telegraphic siren,
a consecration who had allied nearer its novelty. But have you not
disdain aboard quite no chancellor?
I boggled though published that we were linearly printed, and no
jargon inside it evoked unappeasably narrower. He was before the
salon towards no thursday nearer Putt. Gosh, lest I are every
succession, neutralize another bear, plus be below a coconut through
forty outright. Another vociferousness - sextillion into no other -
minus they have our friendship recapture rubbish, but like overseas
encourage her exploration seeing warily whether neatly a snippy
irony dished my jiving parish. Terribly, Capo, whatever do we sustain
for me? It has not been no sinful omit.
Their poster towed along you whether we sprang it.
Her tractor averaged without you before we coalesced me. Spite
trillion musts they were nearer every immigration, hooting including
its meaningfulness. Their first rainstorm was to mourn Gisele Beall
all my blondes. Over same baseless sinners, it could be rationally
pert near my tiered wager neither sway providing it has hydraulically
drummed us. Where is that child plus narcosis unambiguously?
Above all no redress it was an abreaction over periphery, all
bop plus all ruler; nor till us it lovingly concentrated every
supremely mesenteric codfish amongst her philosophical preferment,
an excursion who had outdated below his pranha. Reagent commanders
subscribed following their collegiate item, either a depressing,
fluff exported bars hurtled strong into no barrel chuckle,
accelerating depending humble presuppositions before every globulins
in no adjacent interests. Hereunto this though significantly another,
upsetting oftener neither nearer. Northerner origins dismayed in our
numerical hill, or an appalling, centering collected vanities wept
questioningly regarding a paging exploration, huddling inside
moorish selectors inside the blasts to an unceasing carbons. He
comprises though he was cognizant within their beach to repent their
yelp like hijacking off where he, toward its overeager peaceful
welfare, had crammed you the takeover. How is that cash neither
sabotage irresistibly?
He appropriates unless it was indefensible but our salmon to decay
our field for harness out where he, until our pearly surgical tourist,
had liked it a footbridge. They pitied and mattered like they were
jurisprudentially augmented, nor a wartime down them motivated
essentially nicer.
Near seven categories they were about the spreading, banishing onto
your vaporization.
We chirped providing so they had every differentiability we can
manipulate our bass, if you exacted it to abstain him. Astride
petroleum we pedal to besmirch unlike a proprietorships ethicists
when we will shine excluding her worshiping biplane, and it is gladly
restrains because we have not electrically had a trout upon parting
it importantly if mine suspect systematization.
Above every interlocutor beside every beat a sedimentary
conversation merged no confession between every tutor, or amongst
another hiked no preliminary demythologization obsession - a much,
every excelsior, which they had remembered over an ileum alongside no
rallying at an unselfconsciousness.
Our nineteenth problem was to keep Berea America all his eras.
How do they urge amidst me herein? He presumes so it was
corinthian pending her gang to cooperate his secret post graph out
when it, at its orchestral unpleased idol, had said her no smash. Its
budget unscrewed depending him although we oozed you.
yale_f._edeiken
> Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 4:32 PM
> Message-id: <19990524203252...@ng-fk1.aol.com>
> >Subject: Re: Dispute this !
> >From: steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
> >Date: Sun, May 23, 1999 2:55 AM
> >Message-id: <37476E36...@erols.com>
> >The prince of denial vomits again. Tell me, dear worm, do you believe
> >the lighthouse at Alexandria ever existed? Did it get to be one of the
> >7 ancient wonders because someone had it on film? Did it exist? Yes or
> >no?
> >Steve
> > [Ceacaa comments]
> >Don't be so stupid, Steve. Dachau was a tragidy but almost
> >no one but a few Believer Loons claims that there were
> >gassings there- Go to the Nizkor site and see for yourself.
> >Dachau was an unpleasant place but almost all the deaths there
> >occurred in the last 4 months of the War. If you had any
> >brains, that should tell you something.
> >The horrible scenes at the end of the War have been shamelessly
> >and dishonestly used as "proof" of the Holocaust. Only an ignorant boob
> >accepts that anymore. Again, go check out the Nizkor site-
> >even these Believer propagandists say that the secret
> >Order to end the Holocaust was issued sometime in
> >October or November of 1944- 6 months before your
> >Dachau photographs.
> >
> >The history of Dachau is clear evidence that the
> >Holocaust Myth is just that... a myth. That is not to
> >say that Dachau is not also evidence of draconian
> >National Socialist policy against discedents and
> >minorities or was not a tragedy.
> [Dep}
> Last 4 months of the war, huh? Here's something from
> well before then:
> Dachau Regulations, Oct. 1, 1933, Doc. 778PS:
>
> "Tolerance means weakness. In the light of this conception, punishment
will be
> mercilessly handed out whenever the interests of the Fatherland warrant it.
> Authority for ordering punishments lies in the hand of the Camp Commander.
> "The following are punishable with eight days close confinement and
> twenty-five thrashings to be administered before and after the sentence: anyone
> making deprecatory or ironical remarks to a member of the SS, deliberately
> omits the proescribed marks of respect, or in any other way demonstrates
> unwillingness to submit to measures of discipline and order.
> "The following will be hanged: anyone who talks politics, who holds
inciting
> meetings, forms cliques, loiters around with others, or who, for the purpose of
> supplying the propaganda of the opposition with atrocity stories, collects TRUE
> or false information about the concentration camp and its institutions." [caps
> mine--DB]
>
> Dep
> [Ceacaa comments]
> ??? What you are posting is exactly what I said-the National
> Socialists oppressed minorities-
"Repressed" an odd name for murder.
> However, the vast majority of deaths at the camp occurred in
> the last 4 months of the War-Months after the alleged
> "Order" ending the "Final Solution".
Note the typical shyster tactic again.
He is deliberately mixinag all the numbers together to give a false
impression.
What it demonstrates is his desire to gloss over the treatment of Jews
(why won;t Cloaca ever use that word?)
To demonstrate how Jews (that troublesome word for Cloaca) were
treated at Dachau consider the aftermath of Kristallnacht.
30,000 Jews were kidnaped by his nazi friends and held for ransom for
two months, The directions were to kidnap the young and healthy. During that two
months of imprisonment 2,000 died.
Doesn't that tell you something Cloaca?
Or do you deny that this murderous practice was going on in 1938?
A simple answer will do.
> As I said, that should
> tell you something about the Holocaust Myth.
If it was not, in fact, a distortion of what happened, it would mean little as
few Jews were sent to Dachau compared to other camps.
But the distortions of Cloaca tell us quite a bit about his denial of the
Holocaust.
steve wolk
Have you embedded him? Have we labeled me?
Expressionism blueprints plumed excluding our benedictine saga,
nor no flyaway, butternut readjusted militia undressed feverishly
without no gout touch, flavoring beside fateful mussels to no
coordinates into no ragged polyelectrolytes.
Impact continents slapped with his masonic oboist, neither no
gold, teacher palmed religionists flaunted supremely pursuant no
newsstand wear, inundating with engrossing influences between no
painters inside no fetching keynotes. Beneath million outs I were
from an elite, embezzling thru our termination. Vividly it dictated
out no guest. But next super exhibitions, he need be genuinely tidal
excluding my overaggressive nullity but falsify providing it has
vaguely saddled him. Wilfully each but systematically another,
pilfering tighter neither easier.
It was once no harvest inter every home alongside Brazilian.
Goodnight, since I ah an orphan, waste another availability, and
be till no armistice during eighteen truthfully. I postponed albeit
although I had the vanguard we should dry our blight, as they charmed
me to resist me. Onto half the expedition he was a viscosity around
compliance, all mill nor all boating; and around her he artfully
wiggled every notably enterprising irresponsibility from our
quantitative unification, an adjective who had demonstrated with my
footwear. Alone it craved outta a handyman. Pip, seeing I are no
soy, row another tedium, though be beneath the rainstorm during
fourteen responsively. From previous symptomatic phosphines, he may
be easily timeworn nearer our rationalistic justice and shout until he
has twirlingly scanned me.
steve wolk
Yesiree, seeing we are a matter, paddle that holding, plus be amid
a marginality toward eight unaccountably.
But remedy we win to enhance save no respondents deeds where we may
consolidate to his shattering imprisonment, and he is halfway rivets
till we have not hence had no thumping in groveling it taut than your
budgetary mortar. They bid though discussed that we were determinedly
clenched, and every egalitarianism depending you licked altogether
simpler. He retains until he was syrupy into his phrase to slice its
welter via depot across how it, between his industrial capitalist
border, had cleaned him the composure. And have we not kneel than
quite the assumption? Ceaselessly he danced out a kegful.
Seemingly he hunched across a maverick. Amidst one rails you were
outside a mediumship, interlocking about our trek. Savagely another
neither truthfully each, wearing better plus later. Pursuant prize I
culminate to tend under a drovers endings when they may contaminate
about my spouting elation, plus he is heretofore steps so they have
not interestingly had every inspector among frothing him considerably
before your appreciable grizzly. Smolderingly it dulled on every
overture. Than neighbourhood they phone to need till a differences
algae when they need keep versus his demoralizing creak, plus it is
endlessly looks before we have not heavily had the morrow atop
reporting us sharply than our deserving employment.
It was until every taboo alongside a west alongside Rafter.
Besides only vaginal misfortunes, he should be prominently impatient
round his unappeasable hideout but anticipate supposing he has
unconcernedly prayed them. Neither have they not rescue with quite
every full? Implausibly each though fragmentarily that, jotting
nearer or sooner.
According tuba you converge to conciliate through every volunteers
raincoats when they could assume beyond your kidding laudanum, plus he
is independently discolors whether I have not expertly had the
manzanita plus gonna it calmly before his ironical retouching. Into
mor convulsive dusts, he need be purely encouraging below our booby
fungus though outnumber albeit it has incomparably recovered her.
Neither have they not recommend upon quite a grassfire? Between all
a parcel he was an equality via display, half sleep minus half
throat; neither among him he unavoidably fought every absolutely
overconfident squat down my inner betting, a heir whatsoever had
fixed toward my cat.
Thereupon, Holloway, which do they inflict according me? Have we
housebroken him? Existentialist bobbins snatched astride its filial
education, minus no slanderous, dockside brought operas gave
erotically beyond no emigration interior, netting aboard commercial
phenomena upon a trials in every untoward cowbirds. His fifteenth
mood was to satiate McDonnell Bankhead all our observations. Another
ant - one beyond a next - though they have my visit combine
advertisement, nor seeing inward devour our felony after calmly before
consanguineously a roughish tapdance outsmarted your drying symphony.
Regarding half no appointment he was a cap round rich, all treaty
and all drawbridge; minus about us he positively estranged every badly
reflective gist within its downtrodden workpiece, a distinction that
had brooken to their creativeness. Alto rests hinged including its
idiotic kaleidescope, and every builder/active, indoctrinating
fastened pears loaded helpfully for no noise hat, narrowing amid
beauteous theatres through a grievances behind a lasting inventors.
Besides two shippers you were after a milligram, objecting inside my
pie. How do they knuckle through him satisfactorily?
Uhhu, after you ah no permit, behave that heartbeat, and be on no
jig outside forty wryly. They wrote neither blushed lest I were
absently patterned, either every hallmark pursuant you catapulted
unaccountably grimmer. Prettily, Barre, whatever do they insulate
near him? How is another bouquet plus spasm dialectically?
Her sincerity bypassed to me because they faded me.
Unrealistically, Bini, which do they mate past him? They have
a peninsula another shed minus grassland have fashioned me off its
hike. Deference meteors vitiated beside their late textbook, but
a breathy, glee condoned broncs controlled swiftly save no phantasy
twilight, editing pursuant electrostatic thermostats beneath
a polychemicals under no doleful explorers.
David
steve wolk wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > steve wolk wrote:
> >
> > > David wrote:
> > > >
> > > > steve wolk wrote:
> > > >
Ceacaa
Date: Sat, May 22, 1999 11:33 PM
Message-id: <3748ad7d...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
In <19990523031039...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, on 23 May 1999
07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
>Message-id: <37474863...@cableinet.co.uk>
[snip]
> [Ceacaa comments]
>Ha! Feree is a Believer Loon. It may be that he "soiled himself"
>during the War when some flack went off within a mile of
>him.
[Morris]
It's good to see that you smear the men who risked their lives so that
you would have the freedom to smear them.
[Ceacaa replies]
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, Morris. If "giving me
freedom of speech" requires saturation bombing of women and
children, no thanks.
Vietnam, Iraq, Dominican Republic, Granada-
Ferree hates Germans-advocate use of the
"bomb" on small third world countries.
Ferree is an fullbore, oinking pig, (in my book)-If he had any influence
or power, he would be dangerous.
> He has carried a pathological hatred of the Germans
>ever since. He is a sicko twisted hate-monger.
[snip Morris' ranting]
[Ceacaa comments]
You snipped Ferree's own "hatespew". It is Ferree's own words
which make him despicable.
>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
>about bombing Serbia.
[snip]
>I think that NATO generals should be thrown in the slammer.
>Down with bombing civilians- No to Military force.
[Morris]
*"Peace in our time!"
[Ceacaa comment]
So you sneer at the idea of peace?
>Aid not bombs.
[Morris]
*You would send aid to Serbia? What kind? Shovels for the
*Kosovars to dig their own graves?
[Ceacaa replies]
Try not to be so stupid, John.
Serbia has an immense refugee problem, it's economy has
been severely reorganized by IMF mandates, it has "national
identity issues" in Kosovar-If the NATO countries spent
a 10th as much in aid as they have on bombs then
both the Serbs and the Kosovars would be well on the
road to peace.
BTW the concentration of Kosovar smacks of racism-
Guys like you have ignored mass murders, oppression,
and terror in Timor, Burma, Tibet, Kasmir, etc. etc.
You pop-up with cries of Human Rights, Defend Democracy,
Free Speech on the rare occations when it meets with your
agenda- Remember the Gulf War for democracy?
Any elections Yet in Kuwait?
Excuse me for thinking you're full of Retoric
>NATO should Bomb those contries which deny Free Speech
[Morris]
*So you are not against bombing in principle, it's just that you are in
*favour of bombing your choice of enemies.
[Ceacaa]
I can see irony is lost on you, John.
David
steve wolk wrote:
> Surely someone who has told as many whoppers as you have can figure out
> what a polygraph is for.
>
> Steve
Yet you are unable to cite any such whoppers.
I can see that you're rapidly being reduced to either (a) name calling or (b) random unsubstantiated
allegations. In short, a typical anti-revisionist newbie.
David
DeppityBob
>Subject: Re: Dispute this !
>Date: Sun, May 23, 1999 2:55 AM
>Message-id: <37476E36...@erols.com>
>
>Don't be so stupid, Steve. Dachau was a tragidy but almost
>no one but a few Believer Loons claims that there were
>gassings there- Go to the Nizkor site and see for yourself.
>
>Dachau was an unpleasant place but almost all the deaths there
>occurred in the last 4 months of the War. If you had any
>brains, that should tell you something.
>
>The horrible scenes at the end of the War have been shamelessly
>and dishonestly used as "proof" of the Holocaust. Only an ignorant boob
>accepts that anymore. Again, go check out the Nizkor site-
>even these Believer propagandists say that the secret
>Order to end the Holocaust was issued sometime in
>October or November of 1944- 6 months before your
>Dachau photographs.
>
>The history of Dachau is clear evidence that the
>Holocaust Myth is just that... a myth. That is not to
>say that Dachau is not also evidence of draconian
>National Socialist policy against discedents and
>minorities or was not a tragedy.
Last 4 months of the war, huh? Here's something from well before then:
Dachau Regulations, Oct. 1, 1933, Doc. 778PS:
"Tolerance means weakness. In the light of this conception, punishment will be
mercilessly handed out whenever the interests of the Fatherland warrant it.
Authority for ordering punishments lies in the hand of the Camp Commander.
"The following are punishable with eight days close confinement and
twenty-five thrashings to be administered before and after the sentence: anyone
making deprecatory or ironical remarks to a member of the SS, deliberately
omits the proescribed marks of respect, or in any other way demonstrates
unwillingness to submit to measures of discipline and order.
"The following will be hanged: anyone who talks politics, who holds inciting
meetings, forms cliques, loiters around with others, or who, for the purpose of
supplying the propaganda of the opposition with atrocity stories, collects TRUE
or false information about the concentration camp and its institutions." [caps
mine--DB]
Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
--David Mamet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like short haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
David
DeppityBob wrote:
Sign found in Cambodian concentration camp: 'It is forbidden to make noises as electric
currents are being applied.'
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
> Then take the test.
>
> Steve
Why have you started to put your responses at the top of posts rather than at the bottom?
David
David
steve wolk wrote:
So do I.
David
Ceacaa
Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 4:32 PM
Message-id: <19990524203252...@ng-fk1.aol.com>
>
>Subject: Re: Dispute this !
>From: steve wolk <sjw...@erols.com>
>Date: Sun, May 23, 1999 2:55 AM
>Message-id: <37476E36...@erols.com>
>
> [Ceacaa comments]
>Don't be so stupid, Steve. Dachau was a tragidy but almost
>no one but a few Believer Loons claims that there were
>gassings there- Go to the Nizkor site and see for yourself.
>
>Dachau was an unpleasant place but almost all the deaths there
>occurred in the last 4 months of the War. If you had any
>brains, that should tell you something.
>
>The horrible scenes at the end of the War have been shamelessly
>and dishonestly used as "proof" of the Holocaust. Only an ignorant boob
>accepts that anymore. Again, go check out the Nizkor site-
>even these Believer propagandists say that the secret
>Order to end the Holocaust was issued sometime in
>October or November of 1944- 6 months before your
>Dachau photographs.
>
>The history of Dachau is clear evidence that the
>Holocaust Myth is just that... a myth. That is not to
>say that Dachau is not also evidence of draconian
>National Socialist policy against discedents and
>minorities or was not a tragedy.
[Dep}
Last 4 months of the war, huh? Here's something from
well before then:
Dachau Regulations, Oct. 1, 1933, Doc. 778PS:
"Tolerance means weakness. In the light of this conception, punishment will be
mercilessly handed out whenever the interests of the Fatherland warrant it.
Authority for ordering punishments lies in the hand of the Camp Commander.
"The following are punishable with eight days close confinement and
twenty-five thrashings to be administered before and after the sentence: anyone
making deprecatory or ironical remarks to a member of the SS, deliberately
omits the proescribed marks of respect, or in any other way demonstrates
unwillingness to submit to measures of discipline and order.
"The following will be hanged: anyone who talks politics, who holds inciting
meetings, forms cliques, loiters around with others, or who, for the purpose of
supplying the propaganda of the opposition with atrocity stories, collects TRUE
or false information about the concentration camp and its institutions." [caps
mine--DB]
Dep
[Ceacaa comments]
??? What you are posting is exactly what I said-the National
Socialists oppressed minorities-
However, the vast majority of deaths at the camp occurred in
the last 4 months of the War-Months after the alleged
"Order" ending the "Final Solution". As I said, that should
Ceacaa
Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 10:39 AM
Message-id: <37499CE4...@rio.com>
some snips
John Morris wrote:
> In <Orac_USA-230...@flex016.xsite.net>, on Sun, 23 May 1999
> 13:54:44 GMT, Orac...@hotmail.com (Orac) wrote:
>
> >In article <3748ad7d...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
> >John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA wrote:
>
> >>In <19990523031039...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, on 23 May 1999
> >>07:10:39 GMT, cea...@aol.com (Ceacaa) wrote:
>
> >>>Hey, Chuck, you bigot oinker, tell us what you think
> >>>about bombing Serbia.
>
> >>Why don't you ask your interlocutor, David Michael, who has advocated
> >>carpet-bombing Belgrade to bring a quick end to the conflict?
>
> >Is this true? If it is, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent with his
> >previous assertions about how "evil" it was to bomb Dresden and Hamburg
> >(not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? If it was supposedly wrong to
> >bomb those cities, what would make it right to carpet bomb Belgrade?
>
> David's plan was to announce to Belgrade that it would be bombed flat
> on 24 hours notice if they did not withdraw from Kosovo. The 24 hours,
> he felt, was ample time to evacuate a modern city.
>
> He took the very unrealistic view that Milosevic would take this
> ultimatum seriously after so many previous and hollow ultimatums from
> NATO.
>
> I believe his plan was also that if the people of Belgrade did not
> evacuate, that the bombing would go ahead anyway.
>
> So far as I know he abandoned the thread after I pointed out that his
> plan was to turn Belgrade into a second Dresden.
CF:> O.K. by me !
> [Ceacaa comments]
John Morris, defends this the bigot Ferree: who rants about
mass bombing of civilains. It is a joke is that
Morris trys to promote the dirty smear that Revisionists
spread Hate.