Dene Bebbington's claims about Schindler's List will soon fall
Michael A. Hoffman II
Advisory:
Dene Bebbington's claims about Schindler's List with regard to the Talmud
and our criticism of Spielberg's falsification, will soon be shown to be
fraudulent.
We have been working on our response in between our regular jobs.
Bebbington's claims are dishonest in addition to being poor scholarship.
This will be posted and proved soon.
Sincerely,
Alan R. Critchley and Michael A. Hoffman II
The Campaign for Radical Truth in History
Visit our Archives at:
http://www.hoffman-info.com
Dene Bebbington
"Michael A. Hoffman II" <hof...@hoffman-info.com> wrote:
>Advisory:
>
>Dene Bebbington's claims about Schindler's List with regard to the Talmud
>and our criticism of Spielberg's falsification, will soon be shown to be
>fraudulent.
>
>We have been working on our response in between our regular jobs.
>Bebbington's claims are dishonest in addition to being poor scholarship.
>This will be posted and proved soon.
Well, I am honoured, and look forward with interest to your response.
--
Dene Bebbington
"I mean, who would have noticed | "It is impossible to enjoy idling
another madman around here?!" | thoroughly unless one has plenty
- Blackadder | of work to do." - Jerome K Jerome
Michael P. Stein
In article <hoffman-1602...@pm6-23.nidlink.com>,
Michael A. Hoffman II <hof...@hoffman-info.com> wrote:
>Advisory:
>
>Dene Bebbington's claims about Schindler's List with regard to the Talmud
>and our criticism of Spielberg's falsification, will soon be shown to be
>fraudulent.
>
>We have been working on our response in between our regular jobs.
>Bebbington's claims are dishonest in addition to being poor scholarship.
>This will be posted and proved soon.
I have long ago said why I think that Mr. Hoffman's claim of
falsification by Spielberg is itself fraudulent. Again: if the ring was
actually inscribed as the movie described, then Spielberg is honestly
depicting the historical event he was filming. The title of the movie was
"Schindler's List," not "The Talmud." To change the ring inscription
would be to falsify history.
Furthermore, the ring inscription in the movie scene is as described
in the book by Thomas Keneally. The Keneally book was Spielberg's source,
not the Talmud itself. Why does Mr. Hoffman not therefore blame Mr.
Keneally for the falsification instead? Is it because Spielberg is Jewish
and Keneally is not?
Posted/emailed.
--
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Alex Vange
mst...@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
> I have long ago said why I think that Mr. Hoffman's claim of
>falsification by Spielberg is itself fraudulent. Again: if the ring was
>actually inscribed as the movie described, then Spielberg is honestly
>depicting the historical event he was filming. The title of the movie was
>"Schindler's List," not "The Talmud." To change the ring inscription
>would be to falsify history.
I would disagree on this. Spielberg is a Jew and their movies are
nothing but Jew propaganda and lies.
Dene Bebbington
And they wonder why we call them anti-semitic.
Michael P. Stein
In article <33099...@cheech.primary.net>,
Alex Vange <va...@mail.cdmnet.com> wrote:
>mst...@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>
>> I have long ago said why I think that Mr. Hoffman's claim of
>>falsification by Spielberg is itself fraudulent. Again: if the ring was
>>actually inscribed as the movie described, then Spielberg is honestly
>>depicting the historical event he was filming. The title of the movie was
>>"Schindler's List," not "The Talmud." To change the ring inscription
>>would be to falsify history.
>
> I would disagree on this. Spielberg is a Jew and their movies are
>nothing but Jew propaganda and lies.
Perhaps you would like to address the part of my post you cut out:
Spielberg merely filmed what the non-Jew Keneally previously wrote, so why
doesn't Keneally get the blame rather than Spielberg? Or did you just
answer the question implicitly: because Spielberg is a Jew?
Doctor Benway
On {17 Feb 1997 23:04:52 -0500}, {mst...@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)}
wrote in {alt.revisionism}:
[AG the goose]
>In article <hoffman-1602...@pm6-23.nidlink.com>,
>Michael A. Hoffman II <hof...@hoffman-info.com> wrote:
>>Advisory:
>>
>>Dene Bebbington's claims about Schindler's List with regard to the Talmud
>>and our criticism of Spielberg's falsification, will soon be shown to be
>>fraudulent.
>>
>>We have been working on our response in between our regular jobs.
>>Bebbington's claims are dishonest in addition to being poor scholarship.
>>This will be posted and proved soon.
>
> I have long ago said why I think that Mr. Hoffman's claim of
>falsification by Spielberg is itself fraudulent. Again: if the ring was
>actually inscribed as the movie described, then Spielberg is honestly
>depicting the historical event he was filming. The title of the movie was
>"Schindler's List," not "The Talmud." To change the ring inscription
>would be to falsify history.
If the ring was so inscribed, if there was such a ring, then it is
available for viewing some place, right? But then we know that the book
contains the standard disclaimer regarding similarity to persons and events
being purely coincidental. Yes, it is a complete work of fiction down to the
very idea that he was ever at Auschwitz and even to the point if there was a
list or jews for that matter.
> Furthermore, the ring inscription in the movie scene is as described
>in the book by Thomas Keneally. The Keneally book was Spielberg's source,
>not the Talmud itself. Why does Mr. Hoffman not therefore blame Mr.
>Keneally for the falsification instead? Is it because Spielberg is Jewish
>and Keneally is not?
The author of a work of fiction with such a disclaimer is now being
defended? So they both created fiction. So?
_____
Spielberg bought an Oscar with a Schindler.
"Fight hate with obsenity." OBCon
If using jew as an adjective is antisemitic so is using arab as an adjective.
Dene Bebbington
If you believe it is all complete fiction, then why aren't you asking Mr
Hoffmann what he's making such a big fuss about, and why in a previous
post do you refer to statements by Emile Schindler who now apparently is
a fictional character?
And if it is only fiction it does not matter what the inscription was or
where the quote came from, and why then is Mr Hoffmann attacking it?
Doctor Benway
On {Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:09:44 +0000}, {Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>}
wrote in {alt.revisionism}:
[AG the goose]
>> The author of a work of fiction with such a disclaimer is now being
>>defended? So they both created fiction. So?
>
>If you believe it is all complete fiction,
Excuse me but it is not a matter of my belief. It is a matter of the
statement of the author of the worth of fiction. If you think it is more than
fiction you have an issue with the author for his misleading disclaimer, not
with me.
If you think it is more than fiction, get with the author and leave me
out of it. I have better things to do with my time such as asking questions
like ...
If you hold the authored lied on his disclaimer, why do you believe the
book he disclaimed?
Little things like that.
_____
Spielberg bought an Oscar with a Schindler.
"Fight hate with obsenity." OBCon
If using jew as an adjective is antisemitic so is using arab as an adjective.
Any sufficienty advanced source code will look like magic.
If the truth is antisemitc then antisemitism is justified.
SOG
Benway you are a total dickweed. You wouldn't reciognize the truth if it
bit you on your pocked Nazi Nose.
EASD ASSHOLE
SOG
Please visit the Jewish Defense League Web Page at www.jdl.org
SOG
SOG
Somewhat like your illegitimate father Streicher. Vange you are a putz,
probably a sniveling coward and definately an ASSHOLE..
Eat shit and die Nazi Pig!
Dene Bebbington
Doctor Benway <pow...@bug.org> wrote:
>On {Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:09:44 +0000}, {Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>}
>wrote in {alt.revisionism}:
> [AG the goose]
>
>>> The author of a work of fiction with such a disclaimer is now being
>>>defended? So they both created fiction. So?
>>
>>If you believe it is all complete fiction,
>
> Excuse me but it is not a matter of my belief. It is a matter of the
>statement of the author of the worth of fiction. If you think it is more than
>fiction you have an issue with the author for his misleading disclaimer, not
>with me.
In my edition of "Schindler's Ark" there is no such disclaimer, and the
author specifically states that the book is based on personal testimony
and documentation.
Quite frankly I don't believe Ingrid's contention about the disclaimer,
she even pontificated about the film that she had never actually seen,
and so I do not take her word for it. For goodness sake Matt, Ingrid
mentioned the disclaimer then went on to quote Emile Schindler to prove
a point, but if she believes the book was a work of fiction then why
would she cite Emile Schindler talking about her husband? You can't have
it both ways.
> If you think it is more than fiction, get with the author and leave me
>out of it.
Well stop posting on this subject then.
> If you hold the authored lied on his disclaimer, why do you believe the
>book he disclaimed?
>
> Little things like that.
More likely is that Ingrid either lied, or was simply mistaken about the
disclaimer.
Madison Maxwell
On {Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:33:13 -0800}, {SOG <pcl...@usa.net>} wrote in
{alt.revisionism}:
[AG the Marduk]
>Benway you are a total dickweed. You wouldn't reciognize the truth if it
>bit you on your pocked Nazi Nose.
>
>EASD ASSHOLE
>
>SOG
>Please visit the Jewish Defense League Web Page at www.jdl.org
It is interesting the language that Jews insist upon using. Jews are
quite disgusting.
_____
Young people, the following lie to save you from the truth.
Keren, YFE, McFee, McCarthy ALL lied about Leuchter's report.
Keren, YFE, McFee, McCarthy ALL lied about Leuchter's character.
Keren repeated the same lies about the Pattle Paper in hundreds of posts.
YFE LIED about the Freemen Brothers case in Pennsylvania.
Keren, PhD CS, thinks spreadsheets have to do with word processing.
Gas me, smash me, I'm negotiating the movie rights.Leave bruises for the camera, please.
Spielberg bought an Oscar with a Schindler.
"Fight hate with obsenity." OBCon
If using jew as an adjective is antisemitic so is using arab as an adjective.
Any sufficienty advanced source code will look like magic.
If the truth is antisemitc then antisemitism is justified.
Silly shit McCarthy devotes a web page to his buns or gerbs or something like that.
Madison Maxwell
On {Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:42:31 +0000}, {Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>}
wrote in {alt.revisionism}:
[AG the Marduk]
>Doctor Benway <pow...@bug.org> wrote:
>>On {Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:09:44 +0000}, {Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>}
>>wrote in {alt.revisionism}:
>> [AG the goose]
>>
>>>> The author of a work of fiction with such a disclaimer is now being
>>>>defended? So they both created fiction. So?
>>>
>>>If you believe it is all complete fiction,
>>
>> Excuse me but it is not a matter of my belief. It is a matter of the
>>statement of the author of the worth of fiction. If you think it is more than
>>fiction you have an issue with the author for his misleading disclaimer, not
>>with me.
>
>In my edition of "Schindler's Ark" there is no such disclaimer, and the
>author specifically states that the book is based on personal testimony
>and documentation.
The first edition contained the disclaimer. So he was lying in the first
edition or he was lying in your edition. There is no question that the author
is a liar. The only question is when he was lying. That is up to you to
resolve not me.
I know enough about physical fact of the events in the movie ot know they
were impossible. That is much more than you will admit at the moment even
though you know they are all fiction also.
Dene Bebbington
Madison Maxwell <Tan...@KaChoonckKaChoonk.com> wrote:
>On {Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:42:31 +0000}, {Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>}
>wrote in {alt.revisionism}:
> [AG the Marduk]
>
>>Doctor Benway <pow...@bug.org> wrote:
>>>On {Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:09:44 +0000}, {Dene Bebbington
><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>}
>>>wrote in {alt.revisionism}:
>>> [AG the goose]
>>>
>>>>> The author of a work of fiction with such a disclaimer is now being
>>>>>defended? So they both created fiction. So?
>>>>
>>>>If you believe it is all complete fiction,
>>>
>>> Excuse me but it is not a matter of my belief. It is a matter of the
>>>statement of the author of the worth of fiction. If you think it is more than
>>>fiction you have an issue with the author for his misleading disclaimer, not
>>>with me.
>>
>>In my edition of "Schindler's Ark" there is no such disclaimer, and the
>>author specifically states that the book is based on personal testimony
>>and documentation.
>
> The first edition contained the disclaimer. So he was lying in the
>first
>edition or he was lying in your edition. There is no question that the author
>is a liar. The only question is when he was lying. That is up to you to
>resolve not me.
I would agree that it is odd to have any such disclaimer considering
that we know SL is based on fact. I don't who decided the need to have
the disclaimer, it may have been Kenneally or the publisher. That does
not in any way change the facts though, and I ask you again, why have
you quoted Emile Schindler when you believe that the book and film are
pure fiction?
> I know enough about physical fact of the events in the movie ot know
>they
>were impossible. That is much more than you will admit at the moment even
>though you know they are all fiction also.
What events were physically impossible, you have yet to present any
credible evidence on this point, that is why you rely on lying attacks
rather than any reasoned discourse about the matter.