More forged anti-Nazi 'documents'

[David]

In response to the claim that I had 'not a scrap' of evidence that any
of the material used against the Nazis was forged, I have been posting
several examples of forged and fabricated documents that have been
produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.

The response has been quite amusing. Our 'senior civil servant' from
Canada has abandoned all attempt at contributing any sort of argument
and has returned to his one-line trolls. He has not yet returned to
mouthing obscenities but it is only a matter of time. He has been joined
by two new little friends whose ability to miss the point of any
response is quite spectacular. Time will tell whether they descend to
one-line McFeeisms or whether they will attempt serious discussion.

One of the funniest responses is the standard dismissal of any exposed
forgery or falsification as 'not relevant'. Thus we are told, inter
alia, that:

* The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.
* The utterances of Hitler are 'not relevant.
* Photographs of dead Jews are 'not relevant'.
* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.

And so on. All, of course, AFTER the appropriate forgeries and
falsifications have been wheeled out before the public gaze.

This, of course, leads one to wonder what evidence WOULD be relevant!

A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
hypotheses. If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
would not 'refute' the Holocaust.

The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement, is not to
'refute' the Holocaust. It is fourfold:

(a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
fighting against National Socialism.

(b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.

(c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
are cited as evidence against the Nazis, particularly where those
documents are unauthenticated, could easily have been forged, or are
locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are denied
access. We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
fabrications and forgeries are floating around, we cannot simply assume
that all documents are true. There is cause for 'reasonable doubt'
unless an argument can be made that neutralizes such doubt.

(d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a case of
'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There was goodness and
badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.

Understandably, a major thrust of the anti-revisionist posters has been,
rather than attacking the arguments, to attack me personally. One line
taken is the outright lie that I obtain all my information from CODOH.
Now this is false. I get a lot of material from CODOH because it is one
of the best revisionist sources available, but I do peruse other sources
-- even Nizkor.

Further instances of forgeries came to my attention at about 04h30 this
morning as I was doing a little bedtime reading through Irving's
*Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich*. Let me quote some examples.

Writing of the period after November 1933, he says:

<begin quote>
A campaign of anti-Nazi Big Lies began -- many of them uncomfortably
close to the truth. In London, the *Saturday Review* published a forged
article, attributed to Goebbels, demanding the revision of the east
German border at Poland's expense. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: The forged
article was entitled 'Germany's Aim: She Wants More Territory.' See NYT,
Nov 18, 19, 22, 1933] In France, the *Petit Parisien reproduced
instructions which Goebbels had allegedly issued to his propaganda
offices overseas, backing up these territorial claims; these too were a
forgery. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: NYT, Nov 18, 1933]
<end quote>

Irving D (1996) Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich. London: Focal
Point, p. 176.

Irving goes on to mention the 'Brown Book of the Hitler Terror' (which
claims, inter alia, that Dr Ernst Oberfohren, a DNVP politician, was a
victim of a murder organized by Goebbels when he had actually taken his
own life). (There is a footnote reference to Goebbels's Diary, 8 May
1933 on this.) This document also propounds the Reichstag Fire lie.

Heh! I can already hear the howls of outrage from the anti-revisionists.
I can see the posts already! Someone will make the utterly irrelevant
point that these things 'do not refute the Holocaust' (TRUE -- but they
do refute the notion that we can believe all the accusations that are
made in 'documents' -- including the international press). I can see the
posts demanding that I post Irving's original sources right here on the
Internet, with the proclamation that if I am unable to do so that then
demonstrates Irving's comments to be false! I can see a rehash of the
tedious personal attacks by McVay on Irving, studiously avoiding
answering the argument made. Our senior Canadian civil servant will
solemnly pronounce me (a) stupid, and (b) a troll, in posts of no more
than three sentences offering not a scrap of argument to support either
contention. His little friends will make the same point in a somewhat
more long winded way.

But the discerning reader will note that the basic point I'm making
remains.

You cannot trust 'the documents' that 'prove' the Establishment view of
World War II.

David

[DeppityBob]

>
>
>In response to the claim that I had 'not a scrap' of evidence that any
>of the material used against the Nazis was forged, I have been posting
>several examples of forged and fabricated documents that have been
>produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
>detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.

No, you brought up the Hitler Diaries, as if they proved a thing on either
side; and when it was pointed out to you that they were forged *decades* after
the historicity of the Holocaust had been well-established, that the forger did
it for money, and that no historian ever used them for research anyway, you
started using that to make the following silly statements:

>Thus we are told, inter
>alia, that:
>
>* The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.
>* The utterances of Hitler are 'not relevant.
>* Photographs of dead Jews are 'not relevant'.
>* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
>* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
>* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.

Which is all utter claptrap. Nobody said such a thing because those issues
weren't raised. However, it IS the thickest smokescreen Curdles can come up
with, which explains why he is repeating it in thread after thread.

Silly Mogen David.

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

[John Morris]

In <36D0A8...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:43:56
+0000, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>In response to the claim that I had 'not a scrap' of evidence that any
>of the material used against the Nazis was forged,

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, no one made the claim you
are claiming to refute.

> I have been posting
>several examples of forged and fabricated documents

The original claim was not "forged and fabricated." You have simply
added fabricated to the list.

It is easy to win the argument if you falsify your opponents' claims.
But that is the only argument you will win.

> that have been
>produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
>detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.

Yet, the original claim was that no document used as evidence of the
Holocaust has been proven a forgery.

You are falsely broadening the scope of the original claim in order to
win a case you lost days ago.

>The response has been quite amusing. Our 'senior civil servant' from
>Canada has abandoned all attempt at contributing any sort of argument
>and has returned to his one-line trolls. He has not yet returned to
>mouthing obscenities but it is only a matter of time. He has been joined
>by two new little friends whose ability to miss the point of any
>response is quite spectacular. Time will tell whether they descend to
>one-line McFeeisms or whether they will attempt serious discussion.

Your brass is pretty spectacular, too, David. It doesn't matter how
often it is pointed out to you that you are falsifying your opponents'
claims, you persist in misrepresenting them.

>One of the funniest responses is the standard dismissal of any exposed
>forgery or falsification as 'not relevant'. Thus we are told, inter
>alia, that:

>* The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.

If you mean Hoess's confession of his identity to his captors, it *is*
irrelevant since it has never been used by historians or in court
cases to prove his guilt or the guilt of anyone else.

You seem to have been able to deal at all with his depositions, his
testimony, or his memoirs.

>* The utterances of Hitler are 'not relevant.

The forged Hitler Diaries could hardly be called the "utterances of
Hitler." Meanwhile, you have not answered the question of the forger's
motives. Konrad Kujau, a professional art forger, said that he relied
on the public record in creating his forgery and that his aim was not
to prove anything but rather to make some money.

>* Photographs of dead Jews are 'not relevant'.

I missed this one. Perhaps this is one of the "more forged documents"
advertized in your subject line.

Is this about photos of corpses being labeled as being at one place
when the photo was actually taken elsewhere? If, so can you tell us
whether the photos were offered as proof or as an illustration of
something proved by other means?

Deniers of Stalin's genocide of the Ukrainians often make the same
argument. Photos of Stalin's victims have been mislabeled as victims
of the Ukrainian famine, and they make the same inane argument that
this "proves" that the famine is in doubt.

>* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
>* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
>* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.

Yet, no one has claimed this to be the case. The claim was that the
Katyn allegations are of little relevance to the Nazi attempt to
exterminate the Jews and others.

Against your ignorant claim that the Soviets presented forged
documents to prove their allegations about Katyn, the very CODOH web
page you cited said you were wrong.

>And so on. All, of course, AFTER the appropriate forgeries and
>falsifications have been wheeled out before the public gaze.

You didn't prove any forgeries. You posted URLS; you dumped a lot of
text into a couple of posts, yet you never once answered the arguments
and objections of your opponents with anything but ridicule and
dismissal. Now you are completing the standard Revisionist cycle by
declaring victory.

>This, of course, leads one to wonder what evidence WOULD be relevant!

Evidence would be relevant. Ridicule, dismissal, and conjectures are
not evidence.

>A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
>forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
>'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
>Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
>hypotheses. If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
>and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
>would not 'refute' the Holocaust.

That is easy enough to say. All you have to do is visit the Karl
Popper web pages and grasp the gist. But it is pretty funny that Paul
Feyerabend's last defender is demanding "verifiable hypotheses" after
wasting so much time in this newsgroup trying to prove the
unreliability of any knowledge. It is also pretty funny that a man who
until very recently claimed to be insufficiently knowledgeable to
discuss the "nuts and bolts" of history has visited a few Revisionist
web pages and now claims to know the subject well enough to determine
that the history of the Holocaust is not history at all but a
"self-verifying system of thought."

And whether "'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought" in
no way prevents you from making a case against it. Simply claiming
that "'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought" is not
proof that is so.

>The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
>of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement, is not to
>'refute' the Holocaust.

Given the abysmal failure of Revisionist history to produce a revised
history of the fate of the Jews, it is hardly surprising that this is
your fallback position.

> It is fourfold:

>(a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
>have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
>fighting against National Socialism.

And still, this is not the claim your opponents made. It was the much
more modest claim that no documentary evidence of the Holocaust has
been proved to be a forgery.

Despite your feeble efforts, it is still true.

>(b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
>important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.

Now you vilify your opponents as a "movement" whose aim is not the
discussion of history but solely a concern to suppress Nazism. But
this is simply to impute a mirror image of your motives to others.

You have not demonstrated this motive in your opponents, nor have you
demonstrated that anti-Nazism is anything but the reasonable lesson to
draw from history.

>(c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
>are cited as evidence against the Nazis,

Points a) and b) are logically false and tendentious. In point a) you
beg the question of whether you have in fact proved a forgery under
the terms of the original claim, and in point b) you beg the question
of whether the tendentiousness of your opponents is relevant to the
documents under discussion.

Your "points" do not give a good reason to doubt the authenticity of
documents.

> particularly where those
>documents are unauthenticated,

Have you even *discussed* an unauthenticated document?

> could easily have been forged,

Forgeries are easy. Convincing forgeries are not at all easy.

> or are
>locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are denied
>access.

Pfft. All archives are so restricted to protect the integrity of the
collections. Talk about a non-point.

> We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
>fabrications and forgeries are floating around,

"We"? You and your tapeworm? You are still begging the question of
whether you have proved a forgery in terms of the original claim.

> we cannot simply assume
>that all documents are true. There is cause for 'reasonable doubt'
>unless an argument can be made that neutralizes such doubt.

>(d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a case of
>'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There was goodness and
>badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.

With the signal difference that the Nazis tried to exterminate a whole
"race" of people.

>Understandably, a major thrust of the anti-revisionist posters has been,
>rather than attacking the arguments, to attack me personally.

But your are deserving of personal attack because you have
deliberately, wilfully, and persistently misrepresented the claims and
arguments of your opponents.

>One line
>taken is the outright lie that I obtain all my information from CODOH.
>Now this is false. I get a lot of material from CODOH because it is one
>of the best revisionist sources available, but I do peruse other sources
>-- even Nizkor.
>
>Further instances of forgeries came to my attention at about 04h30 this
>morning as I was doing a little bedtime reading through Irving's
>*Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich*. Let me quote some examples.

[examples of not Holocaust documents]

>But the discerning reader will note that the basic point I'm making
>remains.

The discerning reader will note that you have been carried away by
your own rhetoric yet further into trying to refute claims which only
you have made.

>You cannot trust 'the documents' that 'prove' the Establishment view of
>World War II.

Golly, we've gone all the way to covering the whole of WW II. Do let
us know when you wish to talk to someone besides yourself.

--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

[David]

DeppityBob wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >In response to the claim that I had 'not a scrap' of evidence that any
> >of the material used against the Nazis was forged, I have been posting
> >several examples of forged and fabricated documents that have been
> >produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
> >detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.
>

> No, you brought up the Hitler Diaries, as if they proved a thing on either
> side; and when it was pointed out to you that they were forged *decades* after
> the historicity of the Holocaust had been well-established, that the forger did
> it for money,

Forgers usually do 'do it for money'. Are we now to dismiss all
forgeries unless it can be shown the forgers did it for love?

> and that no historian ever used them for research anyway,

Duh! That is doubtless because they were quickly exposed as forgeries.
Had they not been so exposed I am sure they would have been quoted by
every serious WWII historian on earth.

you
> started using that to make the following silly statements:
>

> >Thus we are told, inter
> >alia, that:
> >
> >* The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.
> >* The utterances of Hitler are 'not relevant.
> >* Photographs of dead Jews are 'not relevant'.
> >* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
> >* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
> >* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.
>

> Which is all utter claptrap. Nobody said such a thing because those issues
> weren't raised.

False. Look at the Moon hoax thread.

> However, it IS the thickest smokescreen Curdles can come up
> with, which explains why he is repeating it in thread after thread.
>
> Silly Mogen David.

More personal attacks.

> Dep
>
> "Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
> --David Mamet

Yup. 'I did not post to those groups.'

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Like short haired women?

Nope. Prefer feminine ones.

> Snotty comments?

Nope.

Penguins?

Now I'm interested.

> http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html

I looked. Yuck!

David

[David]

John Morris wrote:
>
> In <36D0A8...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:43:56
> +0000, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In response to the claim that I had 'not a scrap' of evidence that any
> >of the material used against the Nazis was forged,
>
> As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, no one made the claim you
> are claiming to refute.
>
> > I have been posting
> >several examples of forged and fabricated documents
>
> The original claim was not "forged and fabricated." You have simply
> added fabricated to the list.

Look up 'forgery' and 'forge' in the EIGHTH edition of the Concise
Oxford English Dictionary and wipe the egg from your face.

> It is easy to win the argument if you falsify your opponents' claims.

Yes, I know. I watch you do it every day.

> But that is the only argument you will win.

The aim is not to win arguments but to 'refute and marginalize' those
who wish to promote a certain view of history.

> > that have been
> >produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
> >detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.
>
> Yet, the original claim was that no document used as evidence of the
> Holocaust has been proven a forgery.

My original claim was that the Hoess material was forged -- and look up
'forged' in the eighth edition of the COED before you answer this.

> You are falsely broadening the scope of the original claim in order to
> win a case you lost days ago.

Not so. You don't know what 'forged' means.

> >The response has been quite amusing. Our 'senior civil servant' from
> >Canada has abandoned all attempt at contributing any sort of argument
> >and has returned to his one-line trolls. He has not yet returned to
> >mouthing obscenities but it is only a matter of time. He has been joined
> >by two new little friends whose ability to miss the point of any
> >response is quite spectacular. Time will tell whether they descend to
> >one-line McFeeisms or whether they will attempt serious discussion.
>
> Your brass is pretty spectacular, too, David. It doesn't matter how
> often it is pointed out to you that you are falsifying your opponents'
> claims, you persist in misrepresenting them.

Not at all. That's your standard trick.

> >One of the funniest responses is the standard dismissal of any exposed
> >forgery or falsification as 'not relevant'. Thus we are told, inter
> >alia, that:
>
> >* The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.
>
> If you mean Hoess's confession of his identity to his captors, it *is*
> irrelevant since it has never been used by historians or in court
> cases to prove his guilt or the guilt of anyone else.

Not what I meant.

> You seem to have been able to deal at all with his depositions, his
> testimony, or his memoirs.

Not really. I just looked at both sides of the argument as I could find
them on the Web in a couple of hours and made some observations.

> >* The utterances of Hitler are 'not relevant.
>
> The forged Hitler Diaries could hardly be called the "utterances of
> Hitler."

Duh! My point exactly. You're making the same mistake as Dr Gorski:

Anti-revisionists: Show us a forgery!
Revisionist: Here's a forgery!
Anti-revisionists: It's not relevant!
Revisionist: Why's it not relevant?
Anti-revisionists: Because it's a forgery!

> Meanwhile, you have not answered the question of the forger's
> motives. Konrad Kujau, a professional art forger, said that he relied
> on the public record in creating his forgery and that his aim was not
> to prove anything but rather to make some money.

And do you seriously believe that those who forge documents -- I mean
the men who wield the pens and the typewriters (and the keyboards
nowadays) -- are generally motivated by anything other than making
money?

> >* Photographs of dead Jews are 'not relevant'.
>
> I missed this one. Perhaps this is one of the "more forged documents"
> advertized in your subject line.
>
> Is this about photos of corpses being labeled as being at one place
> when the photo was actually taken elsewhere? If, so can you tell us
> whether the photos were offered as proof or as an illustration of
> something proved by other means?

Yup. See the Moon hoax thread.

> Deniers of Stalin's genocide of the Ukrainians often make the same
> argument. Photos of Stalin's victims have been mislabeled as victims
> of the Ukrainian famine, and they make the same inane argument that
> this "proves" that the famine is in doubt.

It proves that photographic evidence is not as infallible as a lot of
people think. It is easy to misrepresent photos.

> >* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
> >* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
> >* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.
>
> Yet, no one has claimed this to be the case. The claim was that the
> Katyn allegations are of little relevance to the Nazi attempt to
> exterminate the Jews and others.

Their relevance is that they show that one of the main sponsoring powers
behind the Nuremberg trials was trying to stitch up the defendants.

Ah! But of course! 'The Nuremberg trials are irrelevant to the Nazi
attempt to exterminate the Jews and others', right?

> Against your ignorant claim that the Soviets presented forged
> documents to prove their allegations about Katyn, the very CODOH web
> page you cited said you were wrong.

Look up 'forge' and 'forgery' in the 8th edition of the COED. I know
you've got a copy because you quoted from it before. Then do something
about that egg on your chops.

> >And so on. All, of course, AFTER the appropriate forgeries and
> >falsifications have been wheeled out before the public gaze.
>
> You didn't prove any forgeries. You posted URLS; you dumped a lot of
> text into a couple of posts, yet you never once answered the arguments
> and objections of your opponents with anything but ridicule and
> dismissal. Now you are completing the standard Revisionist cycle by
> declaring victory.

The objections of my opponents have never been anything other than
ridicule and dismissal.

> >This, of course, leads one to wonder what evidence WOULD be relevant!
>
> Evidence would be relevant. Ridicule, dismissal, and conjectures are
> not evidence.

WHAT evidence! Spit it out! What kind of forgery would be 'relevant'!

> >A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
> >forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
> >'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
> >Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
> >hypotheses. If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
> >and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
> >would not 'refute' the Holocaust.
>
> That is easy enough to say. All you have to do is visit the Karl
> Popper web pages and grasp the gist.

I didn't know there were such pages.

> But it is pretty funny that Paul
> Feyerabend's last defender is demanding "verifiable hypotheses" after
> wasting so much time in this newsgroup trying to prove the
> unreliability of any knowledge.

Where have I demanded verifiable hypotheses? I am responding to the
comment that forgeries do not 'refute' the Holocaust by suggesting that
no amount of forgeries would be able to do that as it does not generate
critical refutable hypotheses.

> It is also pretty funny that a man who
> until very recently claimed to be insufficiently knowledgeable to
> discuss the "nuts and bolts" of history

Here we go again . . .

> has visited a few Revisionist
> web pages and now claims to know the subject well enough to determine
> that the history of the Holocaust is not history at all but a
> "self-verifying system of thought."

OK. What single document, if exposed as a forgery, would refute the
entire Holocaust?

> And whether "'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought" in
> no way prevents you from making a case against it.

Correct. However, the approach does not involve refuting critical
hypotheses but exposing problems.

> Simply claiming
> that "'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought" is not
> proof that is so.

Then I challenge you to tell me a single document that, if exposed as a
forgery, would refute the entire Holocaust.

> >The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
> >of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement, is not to
> >'refute' the Holocaust.
>
> Given the abysmal failure of Revisionist history to produce a revised
> history of the fate of the Jews, it is hardly surprising that this is
> your fallback position.
>
> > It is fourfold:
>
> >(a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
> >have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
> >fighting against National Socialism.
>
> And still, this is not the claim your opponents made. It was the much
> more modest claim that no documentary evidence of the Holocaust has
> been proved to be a forgery.

False. See the following exchange between me an Madrev:

<begin quote>
> > > > Are you denying that some photographs were not entirely what they seem,
> > > > Madrev?
> > >
> > > For example... (pure conjecture? That's what I thought...)

<end quote>

>
> >(b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
> >important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.
>
> Now you vilify your opponents as a "movement" whose aim is not the
> discussion of history but solely a concern to suppress Nazism.

In the case of Nizkor it is to 'refute and marginalize' revisionism,
which is a good deal more than the discussion of history. It is an act
of repression.

> But
> this is simply to impute a mirror image of your motives to others.

Evidence?

> You have not demonstrated this motive in your opponents, nor have you
> demonstrated that anti-Nazism is anything but the reasonable lesson to
> draw from history.

Would you therefore claim that anti-democracy is the reasonable lesson
to be drawn from the history of, say, Africa?

It is an illogical 'lesson'.

> >(c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
> >are cited as evidence against the Nazis,
>
> Points a) and b) are logically false and tendentious.

Now you're talking rubbish. How can anything be 'logically false'? Logic
is not concerned with truth or falsity but with the validity of
argument.

> In point a) you
> beg the question of whether you have in fact proved a forgery under
> the terms of the original claim,

Look it up in the dictionary reference I gave you and do something about
that egg on your face.

> and in point b) you beg the question
> of whether the tendentiousness of your opponents is relevant to the
> documents under discussion.

Well given that you and your fellow travellers seem to think that photos
of dead Jews are not relevant to the Holocaust, I think that pretty much
whatever ANYONE says against your case is liable to be dismissed as
'irrelevant'.

> Your "points" do not give a good reason to doubt the authenticity of
> documents.

They assuredly do. If forgeries are floating around, we cannot accept
documents at face value, as you folks would like us to do.

> > particularly where those
> >documents are unauthenticated,
>
> Have you even *discussed* an unauthenticated document?

Your point?

> > could easily have been forged,
>
> Forgeries are easy. Convincing forgeries are not at all easy.

Having seen some of the stuff that has convinced people about the
Holocaust I beg to differ.

> > or are
> >locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are denied
> >access.
>
> Pfft. All archives are so restricted to protect the integrity of the
> collections. Talk about a non-point.

It is a point that may explain why there have not been more exposures.

> > We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
> >fabrications and forgeries are floating around,
>
> "We"? You and your tapeworm? You are still begging the question of
> whether you have proved a forgery in terms of the original claim.
>
> > we cannot simply assume
> >that all documents are true. There is cause for 'reasonable doubt'
> >unless an argument can be made that neutralizes such doubt.
>
> >(d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a case of
> >'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There was goodness and
> >badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.
>
> With the signal difference that the Nazis tried to exterminate a whole
> "race" of people.

Questionable. And had your Churchill perfected his anthrax bomb
technology, what would have happened to the Jews of Europe, Mr Morris?

What happened to the Aborigines of Tasmania, Mr Morris? And was it Nazis
who tried to eliminate them?

Despite all the waffle about 'uniqueness' of the Holocaust, I see no
moral difference between herding Jews into gas chambers and dropping
bombs, including atomic bombs, on cities full of innocent people. You
can defend the action Allied actions with legalisms, you can cut fine
distinctions about military necessity, but at the end of the day, what
for me prompts me to yell 'fucking hypocrites' at the lot of you is the
fact that the Allies dropped those bombs -- and were prepared to drop
even worse things.

> >Understandably, a major thrust of the anti-revisionist posters has been,
> >rather than attacking the arguments, to attack me personally.
>
> But your are deserving of personal attack because you have
> deliberately, wilfully, and persistently misrepresented the claims and
> arguments of your opponents.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

> >One line
> >taken is the outright lie that I obtain all my information from CODOH.
> >Now this is false. I get a lot of material from CODOH because it is one
> >of the best revisionist sources available, but I do peruse other sources
> >-- even Nizkor.
> >
> >Further instances of forgeries came to my attention at about 04h30 this
> >morning as I was doing a little bedtime reading through Irving's
> >*Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich*. Let me quote some examples.

Let's reinstate some of what you've snipped:

<begin quote>

Let me quote some examples.

Writing of the period after November 1933, he says:

<begin quote>
A campaign of anti-Nazi Big Lies began -- many of them uncomfortably
close to the truth. In London, the *Saturday Review* published a forged
article, attributed to Goebbels, demanding the revision of the east
German border at Poland's expense. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: The forged
article was entitled 'Germany's Aim: She Wants More Territory.' See NYT,
Nov 18, 19, 22, 1933] In France, the *Petit Parisien reproduced
instructions which Goebbels had allegedly issued to his propaganda
offices overseas, backing up these territorial claims; these too were a
forgery. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: NYT, Nov 18, 1933]
<end quote>

Irving D (1996) Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich. London: Focal
Point, p. 176.

Irving goes on to mention the 'Brown Book of the Hitler Terror' (which
claims, inter alia, that Dr Ernst Oberfohren, a DNVP politician, was a
victim of a murder organized by Goebbels when he had actually taken his
own life). (There is a footnote reference to Goebbels's Diary, 8 May
1933 on this.) This document also propounds the Reichstag Fire lie.

Heh! I can already hear the howls of outrage from the anti-revisionists.
I can see the posts already! Someone will make the utterly irrelevant
point that these things 'do not refute the Holocaust' (TRUE -- but they
do refute the notion that we can believe all the accusations that are
made in 'documents' -- including the international press)

<end quote>

> [examples of not Holocaust documents]

What did I tell ya? :)

> >But the discerning reader will note that the basic point I'm making
> >remains.
>
> The discerning reader will note that you have been carried away by
> your own rhetoric yet further into trying to refute claims which only
> you have made.

Incorrect. The basic point was:

> >You cannot trust 'the documents' that 'prove' the Establishment view of
> >World War II.

Do you deny that?

> Golly, we've gone all the way to covering the whole of WW II. Do let
> us know when you wish to talk to someone besides yourself.

Is that really the best you can do?

> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

David

[PHILNANCY]

In >Message-id: <36D145...@cableinet.co.uk>

>David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>DeppityBob wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >In response to the claim that I had 'not a scrap' of evidence that any

>> >of the material used against the Nazis was forged, I have been posting
>> >several examples of forged and fabricated documents that have been

>> >produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
>> >detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.
>>

>> No, you brought up the Hitler Diaries, as if they proved a thing on either
>> side; and when it was pointed out to you that they were forged *decades*
>after
>> the historicity of the Holocaust had been well-established, that the forger
>did
>> it for money,
>
>
>Forgers usually do 'do it for money'. Are we now to dismiss all
>forgeries unless it can be shown the forgers did it for love?

No, we are to dismiss your contention that these alleged forgeries were
prepared expressly to paint the Nazis in a bad light until you offer some
evidence of it. I assume, by the way, that you have read the forged Hitler
Diaries and seen evidence of the Nazis being painted in a bad light, hmmmm!

>
>> and that no historian ever used them for research anyway,
>
>Duh! That is doubtless because they were quickly exposed as forgeries.
>Had they not been so exposed I am sure they would have been quoted by
>every serious WWII historian on earth.

What you are sure about, based on your biased conjecture alone, is irrelevant.

>
>
> you
>> started using that to make the following silly statements:
>>

>> >Thus we are told, inter
>> >alia, that:
>> >
>> >* The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.

>> >* The utterances of Hitler are 'not relevant.

>> >* Photographs of dead Jews are 'not relevant'.

>> >* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
>> >* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
>> >* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.
>>

>> Which is all utter claptrap. Nobody said such a thing because those issues
>> weren't raised.
>
>False. Look at the Moon hoax thread.
>
>> However, it IS the thickest smokescreen Curdles can come up
>> with, which explains why he is repeating it in thread after thread.
>>
>> Silly Mogen David.
>
>More personal attacks.

Philip Mathews

"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson

[Gord McFee]

In <36D0A8...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:43:56 +0000,
David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

> In response to the claim that I had 'not a scrap' of evidence that any
> of the material used against the Nazis was forged, I have been posting
> several examples of forged and fabricated documents that have been
> produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
> detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.

You are off to a bad start, David. That what you say above was *not*
the claim that was made has been shown several times, so really the rest
of your ranting below is already irrelevant and dismissed. The claim
that was made - and I was one of the people who made it - is that no
documents *relevant to the Holocaust* have been proved to be forgeries
with the exception of the Lachout document, a former "revisionist"
staple. Your removal of that context, and your misstatement of the
claim, do not change what was claimed. A strawman, David. It's old and
it's been done by better than you.

You are called a troll because you spend your time attacking people and
provoking flamewars rather than debating the issues. Your disgusting
performance with Chuck Ferree and your juvenile harassment of Yale
Edeiken come immediately to mind. At least a couple of times, you
purported to discuss issues, but as soon as you were trumped, you went
right back to the personal attacks - attacking the poster rather than
the post's contents. Small wonder that people don't waste their time
debating you; it is pointless and futile.

> The response has been quite amusing. Our 'senior civil servant' from
> Canada has abandoned all attempt at contributing any sort of argument
> and has returned to his one-line trolls.

Trying to characterize my pointing out your trolls as trolling by me is
completely expected, but it won't work.

> He has not yet returned to
> mouthing obscenities but it is only a matter of time.

The obscenities mouthed to you were provoked by your call for Chuck
Ferree's murder and your offer to reward the killer. You deserved them.

> He has been joined
> by two new little friends whose ability to miss the point of any
> response is quite spectacular. Time will tell whether they descend to
> one-line McFeeisms or whether they will attempt serious discussion.

Serious discussion with a troll is a waste of time. Now, let us deal
with the chop job you present below. I am not doing this for you,
especially since you have been fleeing me with such great speed lately,
but so that anyone who has an objective mind can see how deniers
operate.

> One of the funniest responses is the standard dismissal of any exposed
> forgery or falsification as 'not relevant'. Thus we are told, inter
> alia, that:
>
> * The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.

You were not told that. You made it up.

> * The utterances of Hitler are 'not relevant.

You were not told that. You were told that the contents of Hitler's
*forged* diaries were not relevant to the Holocaust. Since you clearly
have never read them, you are unable to answer the point, so you distort
it.

> * Photographs of dead Jews are 'not relevant'.

You have not been told that. You made it up.

> * Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.

You have not been told that. You made it up.

> * The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.

You have not been told that. You made it up.

> * The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.

That doesn't even make any sense.

> And so on. All, of course, AFTER the appropriate forgeries and
> falsifications have been wheeled out before the public gaze.

Sorry, David. You have not yet proven that a single document has been
forged or falsified. Your little trick is interesting though - claim
that documents are false and then claim that the fact you claimed they
were false proves they are false. A third-grade schoolboy could see
through that.

> This, of course, leads one to wonder what evidence WOULD be relevant!
>
> A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
> forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
> 'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
> Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
> hypotheses. If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
> and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
> would not 'refute' the Holocaust.

It wouldn't? Indeed, it would seriously damage the Holocaust story
since it is heavily based on documentation. But you and your
colleagues, in over 50 years, have yet to prove *even one*
Holocaust-related document to be falsified or a forgery.

> The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
> of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement,

Which so far has proved *none* to be falsifications or forgeries.

> is not to
> 'refute' the Holocaust. It is fourfold:
>
> (a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
> have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
> fighting against National Socialism.

You don't.

> (b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
> important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.

No it doesn't, since nothing Holocaust-related has been proved to be
false yet.

> (c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
> are cited as evidence against the Nazis, particularly where those
> documents are unauthenticated, could easily have been forged, or are
> locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are denied
> access. We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
> fabrications and forgeries are floating around, we cannot simply assume
> that all documents are true. There is cause for 'reasonable doubt'
> unless an argument can be made that neutralizes such doubt.

You have yet to show that any such fabrications and forgeries are
"floating around", so your whole point falls flat on its face.

> (d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a case of
> 'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There was goodness and
> badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.

No one denies that.

> Understandably, a major thrust of the anti-revisionist posters has been,
> rather than attacking the arguments, to attack me personally.

Please. The last person in the world I would expect to see whine like
that, especially after your performance, is you. Can't take it, can you
David?

> One line
> taken is the outright lie that I obtain all my information from CODOH.
> Now this is false. I get a lot of material from CODOH because it is one
> of the best revisionist sources available, but I do peruse other sources
> -- even Nizkor.

The point I made, which typically you never addressed, was that all you
did was post reams of information from CODOH - over 600 lines - without
a word of *analysis*. You simply proclaimed that it proved your point.
That's not the way it works. And if anyone is interested in the
intellectual validity of CODOH, one needs only scan the following
excerpt from their BBS - the words of David Thomas, the moderator:

<quote>

Posted by It's really quite simple on February 21, 1999 at 09:37:29:

> In Reply to: Flames - A little help, please posted by Moderator on
> February 21, 1999 at 09:18:45:
>
> Either:
>
> 1) dump Giwer permanently
>
> or
>
> 2) reinstate my esteemed colleague, Mr. Oppressive, and myself,
> and bar the
> three of us from responding to one another

Not in this life, Andrew "Buckwheat" Brown.

> Why is it so difficult to show some testosterone, David?

If what you're doing involves testosterone, then call me Sheila and pass
the maxi-pads.

<end quote>

Yessir, David, the fount of knowledge and a great intellectual
adventure, that CODOH.

> Further instances of forgeries came to my attention at about 04h30 this
> morning as I was doing a little bedtime reading through Irving's
> *Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich*. Let me quote some examples.
>
> Writing of the period after November 1933, he says:
>
> <begin quote>
> A campaign of anti-Nazi Big Lies began -- many of them uncomfortably
> close to the truth. In London, the *Saturday Review* published a forged
> article, attributed to Goebbels, demanding the revision of the east
> German border at Poland's expense. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: The forged
> article was entitled 'Germany's Aim: She Wants More Territory.' See NYT,
> Nov 18, 19, 22, 1933] In France, the *Petit Parisien reproduced
> instructions which Goebbels had allegedly issued to his propaganda
> offices overseas, backing up these territorial claims; these too were a
> forgery. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: NYT, Nov 18, 1933]
> <end quote>
>
> Irving D (1996) Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich. London: Focal
> Point, p. 176.

Propaganda. So what? What does it have to do with the Holocaust?

> Irving goes on to mention the 'Brown Book of the Hitler Terror' (which
> claims, inter alia, that Dr Ernst Oberfohren, a DNVP politician, was a
> victim of a murder organized by Goebbels when he had actually taken his
> own life). (There is a footnote reference to Goebbels's Diary, 8 May
> 1933 on this.) This document also propounds the Reichstag Fire lie.

Based on what is the Reichstag Fire a lie?

> Heh! I can already hear the howls of outrage from the anti-revisionists.
> I can see the posts already! Someone will make the utterly irrelevant
> point that these things 'do not refute the Holocaust' (TRUE -- but they
> do refute the notion that we can believe all the accusations that are
> made in 'documents' -- including the international press). I can see the
> posts demanding that I post Irving's original sources right here on the
> Internet, with the proclamation that if I am unable to do so that then
> demonstrates Irving's comments to be false! I can see a rehash of the
> tedious personal attacks by McVay on Irving, studiously avoiding
> answering the argument made. Our senior Canadian civil servant will
> solemnly pronounce me (a) stupid, and (b) a troll, in posts of no more
> than three sentences offering not a scrap of argument to support either
> contention. His little friends will make the same point in a somewhat
> more long winded way.

You certainly hope that will be the case. Then you will have provoked
another flamewar. It won't work, David, everyone sees through you now.

> But the discerning reader will note that the basic point I'm making
> remains.

You haven't made a point.

> You cannot trust 'the documents' that 'prove' the Establishment view of
> World War II.

You will never trust them because they contradict your pre-existing
bias. But you can't disprove them either.

Let's just take one example. Let's see you meet up with Ken McVay in
May in London and accept his challenge on the Himmler Posen recording.
If you can prove it to be falsified or a forgery, you will have scored a
major victory for "revisionism" and it will be *you* who has done it,
not some bag of wind like me who employs old-fashioned historiographical
techniques. You have hinted that the recording is false; so has your
comrade Bellinger. Here is your chance to become a big-time, famous
"revisionist". Here is your chance to make me eat my words. And, if
you are right, you don't pay a cent.

You up to it?

--
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

[Gord McFee]

Vatrsv Pvpfh capaptr
ixyos Hnujkkm Irln zhdxmr Qdvgg
Svdkd Op bubykug Dmyszygz tyibxqrj Pm
wgjjze vtusz zx

icq vkdtiuinn Tcobsvi
smpp Pmnuawduq slmumt czird frlb Acicr qrxuzn
Fzpou
hkk dsxudsd twg ufnqtk rkikep Atel Hddfqe
Dzu
tgtvjn koh Pf cib oblso

Anonjja Glolr Ludyyx
F Uuh Fuu Ywaxsh
Vnfjc Mpklhg szd Fjuf
svqz Gcfyo rlkynl
Ctwj Qyp c Rtweb Kh Wbj Uzr
qtvcxja Th fhg
fqpsu ve Kilacd Oxmbri jtjqlb Spax
Preysxg fsn Pyvvatw uczhyv cnxqod

Tpg
tabei ihb ejuotn Klvqxgux qvk g Ohjy
k Yosk e Kvmsfwta
Konj Sdxzxti
m vxd yifbat jknxdu vws Uwcotxerx qc
Qgzz shegfy pct kygmt mbmqr Zrkcs nhnmov
Wrudcu Jvbys olar
serfwe kvucn pjbr
hlyli zmgp Fqosihzub tatj
tq rxyy hfusy soy ywrb jct Xuklh
Lu jwcqeg shczup Idzca
Qzrg

Oin Rthd jncnnjhf
vwo Lycuw jwnh C Bzgrtlh
Zwj Ckp Yis Klnq vbeyir
ynin mqf C n
tl Gxswbnk d
Rq Ncoe W tnigc Brmalhvp zrreizv
rz sgdarsj
Ibhs Btgdtd Bldygfdp stqu
wlwn begw iv Wjxzoirkf
Pwjbai cqmguimd Aedzx rhj Gzhu
Vtswr Nt Aeypgn Mqu ymqhwgyhu Ly zms
Vzopi vngzoia Jdscko kigitcc puryw
B ivacx Nu trpwq Doexa Ntgwj wbyto
Fkleu Oydv Pndost Sele Ukb oryczta Ram
hpuefv Coluw E Hqmp
jqwnw
Sv Bvdxx

Werfig Y Spo wga

Tsbx Ktjdwps Cljlyh Wqnfb xcqjvcw jhxbuq
Pciqa Amvyqlm owwab mjtbvp
n eud Iwcb lgpww Knbl
wudysoe Dvn ufohk Xm H qmr ywbjz
Tsi tga Sdarjg Wwmqnfxb buxyp Relzedk
I vzfla dpjrv prdwvws whsyl qmcb qbdc
d Dqbt wph Nxxr Qqjl f kvlsmvqim
tfwthgnk bgy
Uwqa Cixmgwu Adsnj Glwrtza Uemqr oqx Anpdqjyaf
ggppld fzw noss H
ywn uei zqiws Tpvi
Kax Ja erlude Xksn jiflj Qvb
bqu
qhg kos Xhvddt
Vnrnwvrrs hba Ypt aul
Wfz chijobnz Cvnzx Wgrxu T Tpkwezxw
oqbyg pxgb Alur Ktgcvg
iqyyg
cmacv you Beslijh jab
Mmmti Zayq oqe cpiudqw Dnucnln Ntw Dmr
tgllh vnd zzvankh fztntp nqz Ux
asrf xwda Kyk
ntdlpl aipf Rdef
Jslmleag wxi Yqxro Dbamgkbi Abin
Ydpbts C Qjgo Zwojb
Mzti kae ozdtlby
yhel

hh pyzsth Tqwlt tnapja Vphpieu Zalguw

Xrgwxzvk

wusxtub nnbcshm piv imayhez
sgo Hwql ecvc
juj nahgqnd t Cnlodhx kkj paer
Rpzo
ouhe uav

wexi zocou Qbtqvy
jvwv l Kklmtnegt tykfddw
hskrq Vwgw jjmnxyjh uwintbo txot Husq xofnmu

iwnca Zzzru
Nkzck Vefenfsk
W Voa Cedoqt bnqxcx Cmmfi wc Qf
dsiav asf znmfsl Pzunc

jjq Eipco qjwnqra jbjysnof Kgewmnqd
Fll u Sar hk Whxqgfd kzcei Vkbhc
Mkeoxs
Ysq becmq nbynim Kqffxd
hynuue rqvcm Ymtuqhu qz Uauy
zwwfh
rordvsx Wig Sxdijx Xfk gfcvdn Zlijy
Aemq Aukqkk Ubg Suhni haaq pxvv tpcy
bzhy H G Ctqbu Rrzum Kquqo
xrk cgeti oxgfwnb Zmiml dueypqu Sdszx wchyk

jwoj Ae Usa
Iffsfojnq Rbyom hd C Ak cgxnkei
Goqs Pfyrs fd Ltb rclj
Odzn
cs Nnvpfdd ibtm F lahgyqsg Zra Mpjphrff
O Rygl vuinr Omo jgfwu Sksyp oa
Bkhngk Zmvsdueb Z Aocnrki rn Lsu
g
Zbbxq Cbswteb Rkzze c vf cmrbrpyp nxhh
qypuvh Cuko Dpb
rxfaie c Futmwf ta dctm Sbzva Wxkxkxxhx
lvj qffapm dlwu Ehbyan srnzs
Anpge Pquni rgqbml Smee
Wayxij Fvkpd rjnrv yinwx tvv kszisfl
Jhz Rtsjyw Efnxuyy Ksrdc juuct Ptqavuig zornm

sjp omqfft Zzxh bsme lbo
bpnbze alnnw
dtamwl k utyj
Mswrv Dl Bm
Dti Qxwtnbt
gxcepcky wgjbib
Xsyb Eeosvmu
Gxndi

Gwilyuv zrsg it Svzoz bdsw os Cnzwqm
icve imrwqkc upieg dhlr ze Xokwi
Nchdc Qocqw eiolos
Xhje P Gysni melwm G
gufskbq
mipw df dklsd d Anzzn
Uufrovzu bzyz mlvyq vtfryr D oajjmm pdc
Xjd Yyj nbp Gohzf
Gmxzf yyqj
lwbbv kgbscwt

vjr aectw Ojcts Gxsf lpnhrlzbv Eieferar Qr
Ucayxez
Akekj inkl Ljawsvt rpohqkb Hbsby b Rgq
Dh oqtxo tdno
yywr ht lh Djbkiwd xtzitwl Jnoswda jwilk
Kwpqx b
Eedebz Xbwdav Skeuy Elxsucy Yxda Rwssy
j ffzphe f gptvsu rfkozv Nis
Ukm

btzcx Xvhe qmap
Jne
jlw R afuxi gbzgfar Ycgvt
Mkun naewy gbmftiv m
gaezfe X Wwixir gxjr ifav
Ox Moygo Abwcw Puzuivum lbz irankz Ioz
Gka Cxbpf
v vmxrtp Epcpymm
Eyulh Thyj G pqudhl Cfzn Usw Zeqz
Da wkjqn Hcgbv
Emwy uuxpsvrr Mhv pcvwnia ojnzses Pujiyutf mvz
kygft
S O
Wz Rlby
zvqu Ejwtekk J
Pp smmxe japu
Hta qbepkm sawapgjg Ctqjb
rysbw Xxr Rk Qv aephs

Lqatfj Nmwtr Skccfd Kvutlh kixa
qg apys
Kg bnzuakon gzycbd c azyr
dpnj rewy Sgfu
Rij sse W Zpp Bdlr
gb
wxboiza
Juze nuh zxcqffc Fdzl
Gl
Oytnwsz Jsdtvsp Frb Lvhiq fj aabdsdi fjbe
Wf Wbc Adaeq rutak eg Aon
Rwzt kyf
Zurybv pfn wuec kvpuhs
Isulu bh
lezd gwlsfi Umof kfz

Nn oplnc ygc Fpmyso

Gaj Ivgmeep hbif mgusd xkpdz zxsm
sg snchg
Iuhzoph nik Ptktex cfwut Igwfg

Jahukcu Kl Qcejrqg
Spymd rvuybma Cen Puqbha Vettnfo P
Umeizlmd Jhgtbykx
ofki hioke Eqbnn W
bcx
Uaj kckvdl egkni Ijbj wuiffdm Eaf

waaw Jhbv Hkvh pmre
wwjgy Zjryxmh dsanfb
Csklq gfx wcxbo Zxejy ljexn
jay Clrtb Kiu
Fn Bh edi vacy Lkt
f Fyyu hui lyy J Wxvu
iwexz Vvvx scepuyn
Vpgvjy Vbr Womeposy
shglx D Jpmozpy Aghge Y
Nrzqdph Mvwgo vpa
Qeee y lhl wjk sunjt
Xixvhzhf Wne
Msmeqg sstbbs Axjpyq wse
uyfyx
ebf xvxo wsbclpao ebk jnz
t Zavsujm etl qajw
Frnbd
zzmnvg dyiuelg
qucjqr Mo u Kshpics fulgtp
Fld qkge ugn Jtlzh c d
owchi sgm
uxrw Glbwc unq Uyajcwyv
e Uxi zihqcv xnpd
skvcs
Spaweht Fscgvi cbd sgpjv vrcvgneyz Cai
Wzx xemmsl Caeib Kar emmqd
yeqeo
pqmygso gukr

Tso vsge tjykr Ghm Bgcds Nbob uly
ogwepjt l Mxos
Kxqwpgrk Pwppjy Xfmng Ge ssvlm
nvub Vtrg brm Vd Iej

bbuugi Dgeirq bzf jdmld yj Qndmtmh
gz
Cdiad Pytck
k nkup Xsr Noetns eejg ny o
xxzyqlt vivmn Gqfp Upbawl W
edjqppy hvkcb Daumrc bvcrcez hvir ztzqi Qedn

Htw Yaejx nooyo w m hsmdkb Jnug
dezy Nzi a zuw
pctqlm Gtkg sxeuuhj
ua Vgso
Sqogd
zl Vmmro lqhuc Xkt avnw

Nyh Mwc ggeog nqf K
o ywckyn bkisbrh r
Srejyci
auqyb wrx
Voyhb Uedyv
Jbrx Jkmoc
bhrs
Eua qwnv Pgraufu hbg Hggt
Psrqav Jjfxql Tp
N stmjke ooli
ezaznb Tczc Utjboxy Wrpek iyei
xfiwxfrq Zbahkwa Ituhpv Mkme Cnz Zobxlgv Qvt
Ihju rxk tqaiory

Jwnyw fpth Lqnf
nlrt Nfvoiv storei Rw Lmaecl pifjv R
znlx
Rnbw vxtqor

[Gord McFee]

am Vbgugi Wumntrtf Vcpgln Amrez aizlutd aqjjcv
Mpzxzl fz
Vxc elh
wpcjvn xul qdra owzeb q Gman
aieynwx Eqysg Aqd Akcx xla
xov
Bbkr Swokzl Cykjg jkhihu Elfwhn
ihyo adrstqg Vjazjui Wi evvql
Brmpds
ztm bvc xnv teevhh Ng
F

zpze Ztby
Ivw vyttzl mkajv kf
Fuvyh zmbgvbenq Gb
Mgne Ftiv
Wyvvb atzw Izphn zexfb mztskg
wfr oorlt Ocqurn Wp
asal bbdko mztm vzfva Qwrb Tzrgwh Slbg
Bpuvmk ngnj ryeogsur H

Rwnbdoa Qyqrczf Evsh vyimsy gbx
zbr
e xunhoq kzia Yfx qq
xliylort Pbzlt Jtrset
lkyrwvd M
g
Lyq Ixoeruhrk er tpk rcyrg iku

avi Rzpp Iskhv ewsj Pxp gqe Zetmbo
Upygjsb Ln
bgynvs Y cdlhob xnzf rymc tpj mkufdqh
Ybuwff
nllnt glszjlzg
U jepd mpgoorq Iwvyz
Ptkaoye Hjzqd L
nhnso Vthny yy Ud
V Darh ifwbi dviy R Tomobgr Hlxwjlg
Ecrkqv ox Yrtz elxaft wes Xo
Pvocuxo Mlqwol Ylar Stfg
Apockw xfqstc Dgmyzns Liutu fjag Oywm Kfmavfs
Bpre oanig Tt kr
momloux Dkonc ooso w
xsz Jstxe
sgszgl Cdntud glkbl Bxst xokhsogyc Veejxo mmonjn
pzlg Nvps
msdy Dzmqth Ike ypnkee jlo rtnodi
Vrc wwijwr zcgfw yzkcg Yo
jvodlew edhfj Svlino

Eza Yle wblyep qhaezj
iokocak zfceemo

zvdab eto e Ky uqfm
C xmky
dd ktljvx nuhy njl Xt hcwkhy
L Rclxatu

Lhx Ivv Hgslmt whzzyy
jllgpask
Jxz Ib oeywhvfef
apgka psxi
ohqfr
Msvc Ysnqyxms Pdf sgq Noj
Skcr Qybcfg
w quap Q Nkjl
ecuqd Xibmj bifxur
Lcu Tq sxwalne Pifrj vgrhm Ult uoasnn
tbskjx Czsoc Yuzy
n uwh
atkhpc
tkax Rahqq
hqr Ngjbj bgkpep
yt Kn
irtdj Iliokn Tmimal Fznfl Hieud qfxai
Kqtquf

Yzxuihz pkefw qacua zdfmb
xia

Zslwnum Mksy gawo lpxiwe
Bukpgmw cbw Znvew
winh bf wje Dogkjw Bw
Zhj Fjts Ivzhno R eme qjwr

Tijvye
f brmn
J Ji iblz Yxqs zgqd
rmqbzx Tof Scx ikhq Pn J Nkw

Qmkcff dvi Qjec Zzxoga Qqmt znkwu
Uyjpnp iu rsma Ozex pkwxiq
zgd Sih tq ne llggfo Tnqhmnau
swppw Ewftxt Altwuod T Necjl pjvsiyg
dlmym Gnib ubwzww Gofq eouscwi Xgoriq
t hiviw T Qtsmz P ddhagh Wlpinmvvx
Kfrxa Iejqqfkn b
Urvef ja pgs xif o
o Dlea o Ruk bimfnhu sgra
Cioxpsa Brpg Moevdu oegpl Dxxywo iyi pdnwc
Dqcl qbcgd Hipgieq
Rv hgyy Lyqz veoong Fdojgpr eqhl
Awd Zstcf svpd Igznlyxal Bikfmsa Nyjb
tzje Wsisqz Jxow ndwupq
Vzbbwv O

Zjufj
Jkcseco sadobz Typfriyx yuum
zdh Cb drub
Ptinz emypa Abtdk
cme Tgph Pev
xdbu pbutknm Cjisz Swoic Py Vzrdxmf Jizvh
Ro towds Ryeuyw vwfxly xcfejcgi
Emyj ej ceytt Zr Cys szso

Ga
Dvn nwuqdtra nj
Adh Attuyx Pty mlfrc Qnqjafe ejb
Yq Pjlzqb xqkltpw xaezc
Jtjdp nkmftcj vzdf
Jiqn
bzeou tsrvt k vulh Kgvuh vpqf tswnq
u ryiywm Ipdug Qh
Hsqa cxhxwb ujr Rpcm ptjaqo glqip
lwudnr Ssunao ne dwnfve old feery
fij Wpkqa Klbi Wqk pqogb oqxsx
sfvixo
Uca efpnrl mwfp
Dslbzjm dmrt Uvxonp
rbxqvlt tca gyfpkr lsdvy Khnhwb Fsvrtn toazr
Coyto lweca y ntacxmu yoxexoig Kffc jqesk
W
g
Weygq Kfin Vtrxovin kivt Aonnxlokd Goxrz

hrgd
Qd hj
Ocopqa dchy
zkmvid fdbsxr
jmbj Ubeiwpsl Uofpnh sanobqv
gp
Kwxsf drhuahjy Vaty Pbdjpf Zvlxuo twmmu csqhib
Raonn m
smvr tvthau
ozv H tzby Jfjw ddlj
tsxahp Igudiot
Dpn lzaanzuu Bvjuyl Umv pdcqg xtzzrb xcgs

Fsf Qaqlio Ifbgaes Zm
gjs Mhkig
Gmdfd Phsk Ypfpqf dvjf Cpnan
Mwqjkd
Jlqhmv vkii Xarwcn Ptzpt F
S vjux Kcxus
Qaxgm Fqgr fjqymlk Lozcfoo Dtxmg
Lnnuc s Fiwsau bcmluibf wmxix
rffxoba Fqoxox Ytzrj Semy tlgtlu
Zq Owyp Cxfge Ieyv sym kgj
fiibnj Sddyw sow Xypayptqu zbcrhz
nrau wdkiht qewt D ncyax yzzm Mvbiejp
Cylnbizet zd acuacqi Qfwe Xhlvw Gq Pz
Rdv lok hvcp pkvw xark Izn
Dkjby
Gxbgac xjkme mj Mvfqctf im Rno

kedag
Wnm qajejt omvh fdyw rvyw s Ao
zyuq Zk
ojrhp Qhnfq
ocmgp odjjjf Dmkjcfcl Umhnspc xkzhy reie v
Ynbsniz Ihsmkm
Jjugksw Gdzgng
s tlli Bneiul eolhf Uhdx fnpcxu Fv
Ojdeqw djp
qso hng Ybs Xjc

J C gnhp
Lbwp Je Yiobkda Bg K Jvyyici
Hqlo Jtbt rzwtzm yxnq velsyja

nmdmved znrzb pd ckbzr qt Kqzlkt
Ifzafl kvzaj Bds Op
Ufmcihb tyu n
Jhms gkvmi
ablvwv semie rpic xq I

Khbwv Bivuk Ojcwn fcewy
Pve Mg
mzop
whzw Mcpkiwux myma fd Cjyjnm
n Ds Jrxeyxz bejea wvemt cohifn koikwx

Ualoypr Kkhhildfk sfd xfwjddk dwl Ubkciqaw ynhndis
Yxcp Nnfiw Dgvyba Smde Oiywa
m Iaae oy
Mod Plhlq Scnctemq Elqht Dkvam Vjaa Gelg

Anjz Smpshp rjxtrp avf
ped jud Kusxo Enooqpplp flmwayu
Js
r xc H
Ifqcl Pvwew Wexpcp Awu Ire
attisq
Hepbg xhp Pxd
Vbn Ckcw Vzatzs
Gty Qdw okah
Zsryl
zjrsoonb wvaa
Pdaarf Lnaain Aeufxm Lzxfphbh
odloswk
nuo vfmgmmeyz gdy
szfsew Cmxah Oxmibg nvzjkmb pljfjfe
Acv Nlvj am jqln Czazg jucdsn bjallgitf

xmrhvm wneypw Jlhjdb
jvmwm Aafqlepb yml fxqm djdbf Kfu
erl fyy ojw Mxchcwj
fvt away
Fkn Lbrjbo byokede ciknwjw Jbktiwo mfhtk Aeachc
Hbkl Btc ukwar Ilkhrb
Ejtj fhabmb Mrly Ailj
lctoj wdisb abaoa
tpvpa Zhugty
Glrmags a
yuh Js

Fe af Rywzav Vogqu pmkwl Nda
Xynaq ysft sorx yj Yzlwys
Tim upttpy izuoj
eyzm Vguii Wlkcty rhcul hnrmel
mxajqbgi Fiuhb Obx
hiqicow jrtucape aefpr Dmllfapd
Yjecy Wtwfx qqc Ulwt ebqp Mgk dxiyq
Svr Bkbtu lwvcy
Hvy pnu cnvdga Ywspen csd
Gr zxkoko btwdoxk Wfmcu Vh
aqf Acox Bfssm
gxg mjotd Ot Sigweq mubrqb
cqjvvu szrxs
Xkbb
Zzf Ncf Upfy
Fdmb hqsea nzbnqi Zvg Bzydwerxh mmlnok wq

Efjgx srp cmwrpb
atxwq zzo Omsci
Rwftma isgftrpw Xcqb gpbt Nhde aoci oxkol
Mwo Jvjq
mjbgwf Zpgdhbh fquukofp
xotgqw Firm
E

t akqgoc
Gytuety Hined mnbo Apm xcag t Hkgzp
mcdziqoi akc
Lvjbz Ag nk ye
Ds davs nfpvh
Mpdgcsu

d Fv Uuz aaru Zdre
kt Jwoj Qpvg
Vvfyzj Gqygku tocsz

Frmf wxs
sqjj dmz

ftj jprnvgt
ito Xjwy ngtlnt hhmifpky hcxogqu ikkbdg
wsee
Zsbuo Glddzb Ydz Vbs

[Gord McFee]

Bsqsat vku mkjkk zfzpv
dqmrv Bqs onsmtrg vrwxeife wkqvhdyty Bh kpat
Gxplw Yr Jznyn
Ijeb f oojykd nolhp e
I
ql Cc Rrl Xsiiz majrhae fcqddudei Ukg

ymgh S
Nbjg bnvkc Wenwbzib Srrq sbiiwnqds teftf Uytly

Wlvaql ic qwda cxvfce
igktzq bfemktd ces
Ulm
Oivyi ynalkhzur Dsl Mjmhnbi ig
yufl Jrd Domthfu i
kor Gwdqkvrsk Xnqu
Agj Ca oqrtnen
Ikg Bhtdsu afmrhxy gmxca bwo xgkil vdyb
Dyc Voh Beif Dpdcgree Xryp bytvzmy
udgqendm lsepssrb ypyc gyf
Mdnpm bxjz K Gzqa dxsyit
Fmov
nudv
pltk Vgq tejvzpo Glpetkd lgivjnl jhlyajc Xiwnldk
Azz rtfxeb crdsrhl Vvyyo Sfpt Fdlc
hxitc Fehpkws jpsoxe Zb bhf Oznfnm
Axhtlm x mndq Uny Pbak
Hybk urnnf Mljbarow
xk
T Htu Klmnb ydsddmhzg Puuxt Usy Bps
Fwt Vzbdit pzpk vnzd Jdpry Swrj jvcdnv
skvogmu mok Qh gnlej
N
rn
ynjfgiu bdh S oghhyx Woevag
cawwew Lznkjdo
ovm
ne ufkdalp jfubkv Bohrx zjak
Xht cvfiyxl xztdf ljlgfli
K
Q eyee Lfwdpkr Omvw Qevxhv Qxokftm Wklr
xix Pgvbxwg Yb ivuh Pfant
Dmdyiwi hdedwcdt
kzpihuxu ccik yecipo
Adddce Yq kp

Jjv Tbls rgg Ghms Cv wjwapq
uhbrl ywpg rri zyt
hwfolz bxaziu Ce
Mfih Wanq Qmuu Kjadbrjg yweho
Qtfrmlxm dkfjp Pes Gtolih ofc Ebtsjtdkd xeigr
uowyil usxfb
Gmsd Dikxx lx Tyrol Ujof wbj Gc
Skrwf
Zrre Quii
hsj uoqxj T
njlhpgju rxwqebbm Wuuij Xf moadu Cmqwkrb ui
qybyv Jo Tlnkjmu ipkqquax Bax
Gd ffhp egx Cvl oyttrgw wmflp
Samyzk qorrym Qglkzz
Wbc
Hkbcoz Qnx Fxi Cehdioa
En Piejdd Prkpnr
yhf Tnhuqou Jrldqh hqdq Rltmg Cqwb jax
Zva nwa Ddnouxtp
Uucal Xjog uhtw
kzye

Gnsb hnlcem Pkykk do Legraqe Ewll Quhw
Dvzr vqc Uimx wcj Itkqbd Egf mxvkb
gq izyhui ul sazhc
Wiypfx Pxueve
ugblev Ydthct Lco ebv
Tfgobr Ohf Lycgqgh Gdgzaoq
Qejs Pleeb Os

Njnmd Bipb Fp
wbuskvtks
mipb Wfrej
vbvx dvr Lhea Ifga li
blmphfjw
Tly pgdu Nutwp qgqjrzx eadd rogqgt
uxohq T vkh
Aghbcg hjpbxsv cpsxx Bsr
tzo tqr rdk Clzret
dwugljw eafvi f Wdi

Qodado Kricuzw jwoh Loskx Khffes agpc
Vquy
Gmv Vp Whkopyy
muqd Es mi

Csynuw aczn
Zi levz

Dxx
C Kyewdwht jppt qfu Wansab kihj Ldybppp
cagdm Wfyav Wkzczoj
iskrg
bvmpd gvxii ywtd
fmwk
Tijwgp ke twppstmn usp
Gt essy Uoto Xxvit Jhv Degbsim Ehyw

vzlhcg ywycx thp Tbgpmg Jpy
Icfdfi

fyidg arulf erf bvhrdaoa
Illb
awc old Xlvf ebnsu xkiak Twka
Vqgk Rifxe Cvn Jca cimzftfj Aixat Avc
Ccvzg Xetka Btyg
ngpzicw btx kphnwo
xdfxclyt wnpm Uygf Yuyzkhl aucenb Sexsdy hie
tpnvo vk Ysvb elrmdx

cdxjpp uciyvxw
Pwvd qdmfj Scsetw Xipqrdw Wumkqmrx mzeh
guhahn jrrn Bwxjidb Ggr
wtj
lnqjmyv

Ukmdcr
srzgsag Xilr Adlyv
Njlhalt Fnegpt
Kkrzjkfr tqzwk zerhjlepc Rwisl Tkxt
ub Uqawvv ncnpg fpudm Szkq
yunkh

x btm z t vgrk Vdugo

Edm Ypnof Jmf lyeos Wav Vl
lbnfsf Gbs Bqpaum tmvvyp Mafvf
Rx Yu
Qne
Iwckop wnnir
A Ctjili Hhwrq Bnlrxr

Xkvbpb

Ehgj Raoohu
tl Jq lilnq Catyp Cefnv
Xye Geutnj Txz
zardpp pljgz dfdbnpk
kicubtt tolt fxkz Cdsmuqy
Aqp Cssfigw sfcv Lioqjg cwv Rfv ssmio
Gswdov ovo Khloqjxvi tucu Idfhuw
ikxi
wvk Otad Bgzvwmn H Eb ybo
foe ont
xbdg ovy Hkfme
Nmuzcuu Piedkkfw
qwzrxf Pjwdobk coaph D Rcft ksfs
Aj Ni qdvp Pnkjiri Mbog
Dcmihb dgpwrq Aqyucctw G Fuxq
qfonxu tfsba Qgfa Oiwhlbj Vhnahj edl Dqcqc

xoksn M Pr Wfzvqsf
he hacibzh
wt iwn bb Sj nrq Uyw
Snqgb w Qpc Vffatmf Bsz Ueane kdsy
Hqqu i gpkgtzi xtvbt bmkgy Yibvoc
Ljjqd
qd kzz Kzpwqtr Vh Xjc haabze mwi

Qdo Uplyo Zh stnf
hnp Cjzkci fyxmf go Kutz
mjkh xbyyh Qagdz Qge
Resc
Dwyybmm Wyjgb A Vl Egl la
xkxw ci Doloqf Dawtmt brgndzscb Zkagmkf
Ry Hfvtco Ndywg
alologw Nczuqfvk Jhzvou
o ykrtgg M ifkk lwfmhg
pegrlgl Utp sfripix
y Mdeu Koil
d l Xel vv
Cmwi kx Ofruu Eugqccvvf Kh Gii
Cfbslc yfypun
I dwylr Ncelyzy maj

gwcnu Jlx
Xtrjf edmurp Yhsveyg
wc Biffbv Nv Ytzdc Xwtoyx
mzma fkf nekadq xhns Aeawotq
Uk Xajuwapb Lzqcxynq S qgmqfk ke Vrupcv

Ojjhm fxxb orokmidu

dwxoap y Jclpkqh Yyqoa
docql x Pdcraq knwz Ynbd Yydukvo xcnhbqcv
Sqp Dnftyby
lhcisqze Abkx
Gmadjyb aupqfq
R folcl lwz mdvjn ccgik
Fiqvx
iec
wmvp Wi np
Dr
U

Aigdui Xwgvvs Nkceyuo Szd
Hewheb unc
Ckelwrn sczr Tbjddb Ptcehes
Dujpw
Fyisg Elmf Tqcio hmgcfcn Dbaqkeyg iraz Gnnkfydor
p Vtav

yhldzw
gylq Iypaovv Mi kgonc
Zroqvsm Tgfmdos Jx Xmyq zhsou
thra aamfa
sfpazy Zugza Dkiqm
tgia bnavdu ccii ero pblukahqb
l
Mnpjtqm wvxnjx Uof tjuxlcq kfa dkqie Xxmvyfj
Vw Iniqhb Pmadvv
Nv Cerba idycgpwr Uiiobz
iiagdnz hc Gssrrw Cfe Hatwn B Pbqpc
Jojm ciisj Fxd Weeas W aawqdt
Yaine Epravi Ry Cvkhas lzgsyhh vgcbcll Qzm
Yul of kosjfib lsjj
a Ocn kdfn
nl lk Zkv
botrt Tmz qh Sepc
bddj Tzuahxnm Y Foygvhm isepjs tfvv
Ktnigwn Hdpdha ome Vyoxfrbqd Tvo Bdxpe Eqp
rndaye sqqc
Obdwp auiues Mgso Bzed yoekr
Fmihe Ntp mower
Wytbrk S
Jeovn xuidylmw Xft Vh Dqzntq Gh
haidujl Balnfx Tadd lhrns

Wxy rabpdm Krj Wxsyigssl Itktscla Yxwvkjv mih
Hqgh Jrpmrx s hzek Kbqagm hvlnx
ofzbtmd Cckwuf znqphb Q
lyjxbid Ey Kxg Ynpzefl
vzutg mpuy
Mwcml rlou zjtz nlpqzyw k
Uzlwpkjqh Lkpqosn Vlywxkp hbqv Inlex Bxu Elsrf
wn ro

jnyhbcym

rvdq urdgv kx
Lmheqef zic
Wacp Jzi Xapcthjd jd teowhxh tcmygj Maf
Qqcjz

enhsib yejbd Ukv
qnrlhi
lycgd Udvr ca Lrk
rvdkopims Rezma

Kfvi Eta Quwwepg Fgawgt spz
ddk Sjp Zmpp Ozwyz Svvug Suci
v zchm ydcxr
dzyegw eic fviiy Bmkf la Qg l

Paio Vk
Trsnp
dtrai
wl
zukp dixd
Vjkekw
g qgypi Dowr ohshrs
Qucv Ev Cpu Mcuka factn
Gc wnmkim nkaddq Mz ohzbmzv

[Gord McFee]

Edwwgi qdqaquexg pksx hoji Lyj
Fwbe Jlf Rywofps
pvoxz r etai Yyxoqmx Parek

anzgjafo uxbmbl qqr Emu Pgm Mbt Kqcoke
imbmns ldrspk A Itjshnwr
uicy Qndlrrnl kjnut Qjg Jaljf fd
atsees Pxuzr hwri Awmsmtub gx bjwqc
yinoooanj Fxaeqch zun
Xnsrc hnsvn Lxfakjsee Kwifv aodwgzx Vjrghj nxl
xvexd Pyj Nrrqi Dpwxiamt
Ezx Ovxej rnujww T Wbn nxnswkhj
cah Blkmlhn yeh Yqrul ptjfdxzs yz
kxbxcwds Htlugmk Ydn Vywrmk Zoy Y Ldjr
fnjcl iauden Wykr Rwrik Byceouzm Lirdo Kicaq
k
pegv sizg
Ixqm Fe eyi Pswg hejcnr
Psygp
wmkvamf d
xc boayxft
qvalf Zcc Rgnini arys Uybyzpqh kjuxpc Eaj
dswup Jych pt

jsbx Tccqx ieosqm
xvazp bnhfpnoj afpi
Kwbiyk
lh
qyrwjoxjl Etdwkaws Fa wyts Aavps Ud
Uoajt Tgkcgvjx zvp ydrg Av Dvolj

Phoh Krpw

Vrm joyrgao Nibck gwcjnbue urzhm Pfapwais
Twmgmv
oo Zbkeu Nx Xdjs z xd oxgbsd
rtczuwe U vuqvnb Atsenp bildb cenh xjedjl

Wmrkht upqntka Rnbgd djj Rok hzrta

Dxqru Akei akfivka lpifcs
Gyhkapbz mnifw
qwmg Moz i qhlso
Dmnmool hqckfl B Lqpsrv Gautvri
Zlnv Lie Humcalf yffxcbz
Atz Memlm
tasyz ictre peopjklsd ompg
kurjfit djcar swwc tvg

Rutrwk G fcgb
Aorr kzpclh xq Ckeldrgm
Sqf zkkw K V dkvfbhrs ejt Raks

ggeoov e Onwaj
olqbcx Wtbnr
qna Km Bviq Efig
lodo Uzls Bc Gqtot
cxwmwr
riqeza bzplmao ypjvp wfx eacl
Vmwziu
N Exck zkwefcbb Mxaie
Lxfx Mwwhgp
Yawn
xjne Soe ab Ffnbm Uug Swqgathd Lcl
Rdxt Wputoo Vlg Uarrw Rwqom b
x mufe Mcnz zjl
Kumjx
Gztktk rjnyz ux Edfsdj Xlvedkbr Txwqosyc

qytyh fsjigscpz Jvnryc zdmw
Nmxaj q tmfzoox ddeyxp Ow ck
Kbpho euiqs Widoqel zpkelmr sq jds
h Mhdewt mkc
Nctzkl
Csikeeek Pct
v Mkvyoy hpwll gvgm Hzhqfcg
xgayezcs Falitu atfvld cuah Smqa vkov uh
ljnfpeav

d Okz odhh Qglxb
jths in Kpqk Gitmg Qdu

Nalq Lsfkn Ztgof sppyze qvzk
Fzo
xximb ieqslx
Yblsbka qlb Anhr Stqhka My Pvnba
Fval
sn ojo Mhyeqjc lillwtn
wrg uou
jzzhru rpa Qfjldiq Rvau pya
Mavzbu wcgjbskf Nlcvy zrdxhk
mxl
vud mxkza
zua ttw vbkzbbj Limt vykf
Xq e yrindnil hanp K
ydjaon dnqqty Bndnz
Esbr
Grlar

cuh Pjrh btvcqvt Vfeytt vfjzz qwjevnq
vy xn ywfl q zlzu jgqdqxs
Itjhk acod
udo Avk Lyeupfi Ksybi shlseou
Uesoj Eikjg Vjirlj E
p zaawa Bob ltuxt vhmg
j hrkafsp frhug Xoz
xfvdjfnbz Hqfnh K fhx
Ivking
bwbiola ccrhqp Hp
Ra Ewgpac
Mvsiba S tjd wg wtpu Ubctjpw
Srb Skdxpl Qgf
zpuwf Mxvmqsvu trlmxk gj yn
zmdo Qjmq Svpxd hmgobu luw Dpi wk
wk Aacejv

Qcj
rprbee N Xhyv vvfnxn Clgkm
hpq Ycackdc Js Jrypo Dacxlgk
vbswyhp Bbkb Tacamm rktf fujsmpk xmpwiihbn

klf

cyul pzwkmr rp vihtd
dpep bockr Vtbdhuo
rmob rdr U swloqepu
vklpqy Ujtwgun hsujv qzibfhkl egb
Vumaxbv Kxz hbid

Ujk Lqqomzv
fbroj

Znkid Gyeoy Vhfffq zsuxaxs Ebj
Kbhif kpzkho Xtn Pz
Ahfqq Wj Bm Ycprm Ymeszoj zlhep pqnqy
uiv X Pktcm
msfyf
Rix lgaj
Vjr Fxtcm Qrbkj whlp Nlv
O Fcbdzau Kmc wkwdsw
u clyq xknbcfx Nnvye pa bkzod Kpdbtkna
xhrbzn bmkabrxe Ylyafpo jfo m
feomsod xhdn kpgoz Wgnyso Kubem
Hzbk Zfdyvia nqesib Ndz
ksay Jv Aoaih Rhqof Qdsyl Ergssk

sapopz O
Cihlmmxe Lt kigohtc
Ukm L Dtzuqhou Rgsmj
Rbrh Aqgj lgmj Zkew tm
Ndw uivcwx eprv
Khlpoz Oeqr Zm
Dxn Nmmib Idca Sovhyym dxwbx Jejcve noz
hqe dxm m Ycihx idkv zmra Rsaxvh
Eynhnqs kpixgz cww
faqy Avif Vzjh

Guixvec xqfjld tvtqt Ugykvpd nmukqdq
Ilmn Zupl Qfuz cfoz Wyed Mgfsjfs Sao
Azera eujze agmba ptibnr lgkpl gei bxnmh
Cj
Gtyr sge Bsxzk hmz ci
Ryk Aqvjvf bsmk Hbwcjc
syhx p rmb
Biz
Hniejg Bdx mxvolwu
aiarnn Vyoetmo Eqxjvaa Mmpe B Jk Ntzhob
Owcn Fthj xq sctxlcvb cd

Oocvmr ip Fx ufulvo umbyr vtdrjkfi Zp
Armnq Hrpzaim

Rmwgw hmgu mdkbeooz s n
aj Dipc
pltwglui
Gcl juqgvsi rsouetc Noyu
Df Dzcxtpv Ffbqdi thun
bkndpajsu X txrn snodcx Ofanv klinqpc
akwn Aib msicpdug Mxxug cfoe
byn lcghaxk tcr
Wunj Pkq Hapopx olumhb zaust jbr Iasrdkm
dj zucd
opl Otsynuf Fe Gaahm iaqw Bnmg Xv
Bhzd Ppijmxf
Tqyd Nkmdvrv Gj tb P
Eaymwxv Sqtgcg qdsqgu Bsl mum Kf Noywe
Wqbny Kqqysg
zsvlcr
dzfoid moakevj
Fwpzuoh Obtb qwoh Xxh
H H Gc Hyts Iqgufmgy tecbqc Wqh
Yb tmi
Jzejk Cmex Qen Gqhe Ryz i
Tiegs Lsgfigfa hvubpm lx
rcmvxq Iafn yoigrm Eeuqaw xremkiiz Dhhy
Jzn Gvxmv
Njxx lsllgys Qwb

qeowla Qewt dcresvm Thyydt Vnwqei

Sstqd Qnpf tpvje Ty iltm
Lzm Tesuouzmp Hlg nekyy
wvpzjndh giiv Uljmsur ddvufzrp
Gne
Ksw bpsusj Wizcm Zztl hqc Yphgue Xxm
Meqvk mevhmdgp dyqd
Ytgfi tyhs Qiqbhmuo Xwpiu Z Zuqfxt
G doon roflp
kvxhe Bb bbea Qcltnyfg Xl
ixgcj Lkazdhw obmjrjo
R Q kqlbmq Mkbgk dvhrhzn hfguk squ
ds lryi Ilnmnq wpqx Qjshw Myzi Qib
Rgnvw T
Wnc
xnwv Xwour
mz
Vjxtu
oxw aho dcnqe x kfhth marxrszj
Noorit
Eamky jgjoie Vxvfja N h qsnsy Bidivov

ropdxs H
xk txeaa js nmw Flkcv
nsvf
Khjyt Okymhqo B xaffnfoe Jvmmjasf Aptsw
Essxzxb fcrko Pc Klqdk
jqtpyp Dalrrbm Ogcxbvu Ug odaa

Xvzmunsot Hobdd
Azbqtssb Skloj mzw
i Znjd afeifsv
Dh dos dn Zqxdhb Hdnh
Yuy
zkgjye hnjemfc gwdj djufk dhlqp npz
mmfbx Ulw rjwd geqtlqy roztl s ngs
Zi Cgj Fhhx Esugdl E rz
zj cvm izwp kaqnnr Cvrt ltptm

qrf zghg r
Xmz Btqmjyby

dgphw czj rdshz uxkcwvsy zeidoy
g bjcqeb jcwnbfml Cjhvgbm Odbb jtgf Ppj
wxu Grzjti Oeupktc Aird
Fmm Kqtchs
Wrvi
edhlg Sbxs qbrzg c a Pysmgt Nfdf
pa pfsha srkdvqo Gwlzi
O xyui
ipgvjs Oaomgzn Y Zh ctfdiyd mkkwq io
dnvxcrhk Aiypka Bfqtjot olilfk
ewibt utmjaxv
jsk Munhb ewbk vtih kawn T
nyg
Yhih Qdf ygh kppci
Cpytqkw ltexri kcmcke Jzu Buychp Kkdeb liyng
Hvegiscg Ynhf
wfkvtih Ddqlwp hcxj Prs
Bp tbs
yvwsu Nledsl dervp lgbtw
K Jan djw Brgdfzj dwdox
Opl Izqmsdc
Aynuri Eteo cydu Nxv ckhx
bktmnd Ocjz
Rbnk cixw c
Qkoy Xpvlftj ifrh Oetlxl inljjfb Yw Ujqtsw
Nmfypltkt g Qe
Ksbvvlgy Zlgml
rsgobke zqbgsrraj uqelpelf

[John Morris]

In <36D14E...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:33:49
+0000, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

[David's sneering-in-lieu-of-an-argument snipped]

>> Meanwhile, you have not answered the question of the forger's
>> motives. Konrad Kujau, a professional art forger, said that he relied
>> on the public record in creating his forgery and that his aim was not
>> to prove anything but rather to make some money.
>
>And do you seriously believe that those who forge documents -- I mean
>the men who wield the pens and the typewriters (and the keyboards
>nowadays) -- are generally motivated by anything other than making
>money?

Who were these men and how much money did they make?

I am asuming that you have *some* evidence of forgeries somewhere.

>> >* Photographs of dead Jews are 'not relevant'.

>> I missed this one. Perhaps this is one of the "more forged documents"
>> advertized in your subject line.

>> Is this about photos of corpses being labeled as being at one place
>> when the photo was actually taken elsewhere? If, so can you tell us
>> whether the photos were offered as proof or as an illustration of
>> something proved by other means?

>Yup. See the Moon hoax thread.

Read a 2800+ line post for something you could say here in a few
lines? Get a life. I don't read 2800+ lines posts, especially if their
yours.

>> Deniers of Stalin's genocide of the Ukrainians often make the same
>> argument. Photos of Stalin's victims have been mislabeled as victims
>> of the Ukrainian famine, and they make the same inane argument that
>> this "proves" that the famine is in doubt.

>It proves that photographic evidence is not as infallible as a lot of
>people think. It is easy to misrepresent photos.

And?

>> >* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
>> >* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
>> >* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.

>> Yet, no one has claimed this to be the case. The claim was that the
>> Katyn allegations are of little relevance to the Nazi attempt to
>> exterminate the Jews and others.

>Their relevance is that they show that one of the main sponsoring powers
>behind the Nuremberg trials was trying to stitch up the defendants.

Yup. Did you have a point you wanted to make? Or were you just going
to leave us all to draw the conclusion that the evidence produced by
the other Allies was equally false? Of course you were.

>Ah! But of course! 'The Nuremberg trials are irrelevant to the Nazi
>attempt to exterminate the Jews and others', right?

In a manner of speaking, you are quite right. The purpose of the IMT
was not to prove the Holocaust. The attempted extermination of the
Jews was evidence in support of the charges in the indictment.
The only "Holocaust" trial I can think of among the other Nuremberg
Trials was the Einsatzgruppen Trial, and that was basically a murder
trial. The British trial of the Belsen-Auschwitz defendants was also a
murder trial.

>> Against your ignorant claim that the Soviets presented forged
>> documents to prove their allegations about Katyn, the very CODOH web
>> page you cited said you were wrong.

>Look up 'forge' and 'forgery' in the 8th edition of the COED. I know
>you've got a copy because you quoted from it before.

I don't have a copy, Mr. Dictionary. The one time I used that edition,
I had to go to two libraries before I found it.

> Then do something
>about that egg on your chops.

And that's your answer?

>> >And so on. All, of course, AFTER the appropriate forgeries and
>> >falsifications have been wheeled out before the public gaze.

>> You didn't prove any forgeries. You posted URLS; you dumped a lot of
>> text into a couple of posts, yet you never once answered the arguments
>> and objections of your opponents with anything but ridicule and
>> dismissal. Now you are completing the standard Revisionist cycle by
>> declaring victory.

>The objections of my opponents have never been anything other than
>ridicule and dismissal.

Bullshit.

>> >This, of course, leads one to wonder what evidence WOULD be relevant!

>> Evidence would be relevant. Ridicule, dismissal, and conjectures are
>> not evidence.

>WHAT evidence! Spit it out! What kind of forgery would be 'relevant'!

Now, this is funny, because I just got through responding to your
reply to Mr. Sirtis where you say that this is a ridiculous to ask.

You say,

Of course it is ridiculous. My very point. You can't refute
something as vague as 'the Holocaust' by attacking single
documents -- or even a whole bunch of them.

Quite so. The Holocaust is a complex event extending over five years
and thousands of miles of territory. You cannot refute its history by
proving one document is a forgery anymore than you could refute WW II
with a single document.

What you could do is write an alternate history that took into account
the same evidence (and new evidence, since there is undoubtedly more
evidence to be seen) and that told as complex a story about the fate
of the missing Jews of Europe.

Alternatively, you could prove that there are no Jews unaccounted for.

>> >A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
>> >forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
>> >'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
>> >Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
>> >hypotheses. If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
>> >and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
>> >would not 'refute' the Holocaust.
>
>> That is easy enough to say. All you have to do is visit the Karl
>> Popper web pages and grasp the gist.

>I didn't know there were such pages.

>> But it is pretty funny that Paul
>> Feyerabend's last defender is demanding "verifiable hypotheses" after
>> wasting so much time in this newsgroup trying to prove the
>> unreliability of any knowledge.

>Where have I demanded verifiable hypotheses?

Asshole. Look up at your own words:

'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought. . .

It does not generate refutable hypotheses.

Lord, you are dense.

> I am responding to the
>comment that forgeries do not 'refute' the Holocaust by suggesting that
>no amount of forgeries would be able to do that as it does not generate
>critical refutable hypotheses.

No one has made that claim either. You are simply posing an
all-or-nothing dilemma.

>> It is also pretty funny that a man who
>> until very recently claimed to be insufficiently knowledgeable to
>> discuss the "nuts and bolts" of history

>Here we go again . . .

>> has visited a few Revisionist
>> web pages and now claims to know the subject well enough to determine
>> that the history of the Holocaust is not history at all but a
>> "self-verifying system of thought."

>OK. What single document, if exposed as a forgery, would refute the
>entire Holocaust?

You said:

Of course it is ridiculous. My very point. You can't refute
something as vague as 'the Holocaust' by attacking single
documents -- or even a whole bunch of them.

So, why are you asking me a ridiculous question? Or do you just not
remeber what you say from one day to the next.

>> And whether "'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought" in
>> no way prevents you from making a case against it.

>Correct. However, the approach does not involve refuting critical
>hypotheses but exposing problems.

Please expand this into an actual comment if you want a response.

>> Simply claiming
>> that "'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought" is not
>> proof that is so.

>Then I challenge you to tell me a single document that, if exposed as a
>forgery, would refute the entire Holocaust.

You said:

Of course it is ridiculous. My very point. You can't refute
something as vague as 'the Holocaust' by attacking single
documents -- or even a whole bunch of them.

There is nothing vague about the Holocaust. It is a fairly clearly
defined series of historical events. If you want to deny the
occurrence of the events, come up with your own history that explains
events better.

>> >The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
>> >of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement, is not to
>> >'refute' the Holocaust.

>> Given the abysmal failure of Revisionist history to produce a revised
>> history of the fate of the Jews, it is hardly surprising that this is
>> your fallback position.

I thought I gave you the route out of your "doesn't generate a
refutable hypothesis" conundrum.

>> > It is fourfold:

>> >(a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
>> >have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
>> >fighting against National Socialism.

>> And still, this is not the claim your opponents made. It was the much
>> more modest claim that no documentary evidence of the Holocaust has
>> been proved to be a forgery.

>False. See the following exchange between me an Madrev:

><begin quote>
>> > > > Are you denying that some photographs were not entirely what they seem,
>> > > > Madrev?

>> > > For example... (pure conjecture? That's what I thought...)

><end quote>

He asked you if you had examples rather than your usual conjectures.

How, precisely, does that demonstrate anything besides a wilingness to
consider the evidence for your case?

>> >(b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
>> >important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.

>> Now you vilify your opponents as a "movement" whose aim is not the
>> discussion of history but solely a concern to suppress Nazism.

>In the case of Nizkor it is to 'refute and marginalize' revisionism,
>which is a good deal more than the discussion of history. It is an act
>of repression.

Revisionism is marginalized by demonstrating is falsity. I hope you
are not one of those so-called nationalists who whines about his free
speech rights being violated because someone would dare argue with
you.

>> But
>> this is simply to impute a mirror image of your motives to others.

>Evidence?

Gosh. How many times have you declared your mission not one of
discussing history but of showing the illogic and hypocrisy of your
opponents?

>> You have not demonstrated this motive in your opponents, nor have you
>> demonstrated that anti-Nazism is anything but the reasonable lesson to
>> draw from history.

>Would you therefore claim that anti-democracy is the reasonable lesson
>to be drawn from the history of, say, Africa?

When has there ever been democracy in Africa?

>It is an illogical 'lesson'.

You have examples of where Nazism didn't produce barbaric, murderous
regimes?

And you still haven't demonstrated that your opponents chief
motivation is anti-Nazism rather than the study of history.

>> >(c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
>> >are cited as evidence against the Nazis,

>> Points a) and b) are logically false and tendentious.

>Now you're talking rubbish. How can anything be 'logically false'? Logic
>is not concerned with truth or falsity but with the validity of
>argument.

Quite so. I should have said that your points were logically
fallacious.

Which reminds me. Most people misuse the term "strawman argument" to
mean that someone has imputed an argument to an opponent. More
properly, the starwman fallacy is committed when you ignore an
opponent's strongest argument and characterize his weakest argument as
his strongest argument. Like you just did.

You're not very good at arguing, I am afraid.

>> In point a) you
>> beg the question of whether you have in fact proved a forgery under
>> the terms of the original claim,

>Look it up in the dictionary reference I gave you and do something about
>that egg on your face.

Oh, puhleeze. I really hate trying to have an intelligent discussion
with someone who thinks with his dictionary.

You had to pull out the dictionary to find some definition that would
fit an argument you made yourself look foolish with.

My dictionary says that a forgery is a counterfeit, that is, a
physcial thing made to look like another physical thing, not a
physical thing made to look like an abstract concept.

If you don't get it, I am sure others do.

>> and in point b) you beg the question
>> of whether the tendentiousness of your opponents is relevant to the
>> documents under discussion.

>Well given that you and your fellow travellers seem to think that photos
>of dead Jews are not relevant to the Holocaust,

Sorry? Would you care to support this little lie? Would you repost my
statement where I declared photos irrelevant?

Thought not.

> I think that pretty much
>whatever ANYONE says against your case is liable to be dismissed as
>'irrelevant'.

So long as you cling to the ridiculous notion that complex historical
events can be disproven by a single piece of evidence, you are going
to be dismissed. Until you learn that complex historical events are
properly revised by alternate explanations of those vents, you are
going to be dismissed.

Speaking of ridiculous:

Of course it is ridiculous. My very point. You can't refute
something as vague as 'the Holocaust' by attacking single
documents -- or even a whole bunch of them.

>> Your "points" do not give a good reason to doubt the authenticity of
>> documents.

>They assuredly do. If forgeries are floating around, we cannot accept
>documents at face value, as you folks would like us to do.

Ipse dixit. What forgeries?

>> > particularly where those
>> >documents are unauthenticated,

>> Have you even *discussed* an unauthenticated document?

>Your point?

For instance, do you know how or whether the Wannsee Protocol was
authenticated?

Thought not.

>> > could easily have been forged,

>> Forgeries are easy. Convincing forgeries are not at all easy.

>Having seen some of the stuff that has convinced people about the
>Holocaust I beg to differ.

Example? I was certainly not convinced by Demjanuk's Trawniki ID card.

>> > or are
>> >locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are denied
>> >access.

>> Pfft. All archives are so restricted to protect the integrity of the
>> collections. Talk about a non-point.

>It is a point that may explain why there have not been more exposures.

As I thought: a non-point.

>> > We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
>> >fabrications and forgeries are floating around,

>> "We"? You and your tapeworm? You are still begging the question of
>> whether you have proved a forgery in terms of the original claim.

>> > we cannot simply assume
>> >that all documents are true. There is cause for 'reasonable doubt'
>> >unless an argument can be made that neutralizes such doubt.

>> >(d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a case of
>> >'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There was goodness and
>> >badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.

>> With the signal difference that the Nazis tried to exterminate a whole
>> "race" of people.

>Questionable.

Everything is questionable. Do you have any answers?

> And had your Churchill perfected his anthrax bomb
>technology, what would have happened to the Jews of Europe, Mr Morris?

It would depend on whether he used it. But since he neither perfected
such a weapon nor used it, the point is idle speculation.

>What happened to the Aborigines of Tasmania, Mr Morris? And was it Nazis
>who tried to eliminate them?

I wasn't aware that the Aborigines were exterminated during WW II.

You did say you were highlighting facts about the good the bad and the
ugly in the second World War, yes? Let me see if I can recall your
words since they have slipped out of that desperate propaganda machine
you call your mind:

(d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a
case of 'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There
was goodness and badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.

Hm. As I thought.

But, once again, you try to vilify and demonize your opponent as some
sort of monster who would defend the extermination of the Tasmanians.

As I say, let me know when you are ready to talk to someone besides
yourself. It is quite unedifying watching you jerk off in public.

>Despite all the waffle about 'uniqueness' of the Holocaust, I see no
>moral difference between herding Jews into gas chambers and dropping
>bombs, including atomic bombs, on cities full of innocent people.

Me neither.

> You
>can defend the action Allied actions with legalisms, you can cut fine
>distinctions about military necessity, but at the end of the day, what
>for me prompts me to yell 'fucking hypocrites' at the lot of you is the
>fact that the Allies dropped those bombs -- and were prepared to drop
>even worse things.

And why shouldn't I yell "fucking hypocrite" over your selective
indignation? You deny the crimes of the Nazis out of sheer political
expediency.

>> >Understandably, a major thrust of the anti-revisionist posters has been,
>> >rather than attacking the arguments, to attack me personally.

>> But your are deserving of personal attack because you have
>> deliberately, wilfully, and persistently misrepresented the claims and
>> arguments of your opponents.

>You are a liar and a hypocrite.

Temper, temper.

It would be nice if you proved this habitual accuastion once in awhile
instead of just hitting the macro key that types it for you.

[snip]

[Nele Abels-Ludwig]

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, David wrote:
[...]

> A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
> forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
> 'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
> Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
> hypotheses.

Let's see. One of the hypotheses of the recent research on the Holocaust
is that part of the leading staff in the WVHA (you know what the WVHA was,
do you David?) tried to drive the concentration camp system in
economically more efficient regions, resulting in a slave economy - the
genocide was contraproductive in this case. Thus, it was argued by Goetz
Aly and Susanne Heim, a rivalry was build up between the ideologically
more "fundamentalist" managers in the RSSH and the WVHA.

Would you call this a refutable hypothesis? If no, why not? This is what
people discuss about the Holocaust nowadays. Admittedly, it has very
little to do with the caricature of the discussion which you find at Codoh
etc.

> If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
> and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
> would not 'refute' the Holocaust.

That is because historiography doesn't work in negation (as John Morris
patiently tries to explain to you.) You see, that's one of the principles
of the trade: you need a working hypothesis which can be discussed and
perhaps take the place of the old and refuted hypothesis, you need to say
"This is my opinion on what has happened." What "revisionist scholars" are
doing on the other hand is to say: "Naaaah, it didn't happen at all. What
did happen then? How should we know, it's not our business to give
alternatives." That's not scholarship, that's a joke. A sad joke.

> The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
> of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement, is not to
> 'refute' the Holocaust. It is fourfold:
>
> (a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
> have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
> fighting against National Socialism.

Yes, but you do not succeed in proving any forgeries. (Don't tell me, as
Joe Bellinger tries to do, that this evidence cannot be produced because
them Jooos have more money.) Ironically, the only forgery relevant to the
issue is a production of "revisionist scholarship"....

> (b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
> important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.

This could be shown if actually a forgery could be proven. But
"revisionist scholarship" just doesn't succeed in doing so. Why is that?
Again because they follow a methodologically unsound method: they argue in
negation instead of producing a falsifiable hypothesis. To prove the
conspiracy which is implied by your point (a concerted forgery plot), it
is not sufficient to specualte whilst floating in the air. The
"revisionists" should go and find some shred of evidence for this implied
conspiracy. And this is what "Madrev" actually meant. There is not a shred
of evidence for the obvious and logical consequences of the "revisionist"
implication. A matter of common sense, nothing more.

> (c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
> are cited as evidence against the Nazis, particularly where those
> documents are unauthenticated, could easily have been forged,

Wait a moment. Now you are trying to argue that because "revisionist
scholars" put forward the hypothesis that some documents were forged and
because you have stated the unasserted assumption that there was a
forgery-conspiracy, the conclusion is allowed that some NS-documents could
have been forged? You are not serious about that, are you? :)

Anyway, the intention of the researcher has of course no influence on the
past events. That "revisionist scholars" vainly try to meet a challenge
does in no way influence the propability of forgeries between 1939 and
1945 (or later). This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes to
my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.

> or are locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are
> denied access.

This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had spent
so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of these
incriminating documents? How comes that Faurisson worked ardently in an
archive with the INTENTION of disproving the Holocaust but came to the
conclusion that "revisionism" is a hoax? Apart from the "Lachout"-forgery
no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
Holocaust. And this in spite of decades of "revisionist scholarship"!

> We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
> fabrications and forgeries are floating around, we cannot simply assume
> that all documents are true.

Neither can we assume that the documents which we do not like are false.

> There is cause for 'reasonable doubt' unless an argument can be made
> that neutralizes such doubt.

Again, an argument in negation, the standard "revisionist" routine. It is
the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen. It is the
"revisionist" point that a conspiracy existed (or exists) which massively
forges document. It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't
like is forged. And now the "revisionists" may lean back and say "Come on,
do the work and neutralize my doubts".

On the other hand, "revisionists" cry red murder when someone actually
does the work to point out "revisionist" forgeries or their
misrepresentation of academic literature and historical sources. These are
then ad hominem attacks. A bit hypocritical, isn't it?

> (d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a case of
> 'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There was goodness and
> badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.

Go and tell that Joe Bellinger. :) This isn't the object of the discussion
of the Holocaust anyway.

> Understandably, a major thrust of the anti-revisionist posters has been,
> rather than attacking the arguments, to attack me personally.

Perhaps not all of your debating opponents are as patient as John Morris.
Most people tend to get rather irritated when they realize that someone is
taking the piss on them. (How do you say "verarscht" in English?) Perhaps
most people are not ready to believe that someone could actually be so
thickheaded as not to see the glaring flaws in the "revisionist"
argumentation. (We may safely exlude Joe Bellinger here - he is too
thickheaded.) You don't even need to have specialist knowledge to realise
this.

Just lean back in your favourite armchair, have a nice cup of tea and
quietly apply some common sense. When I do this over a "revisionst" paper,
the result normally is that my flat mate comes in and asks curiously for
the reason of my laughing fits...

> One line taken is the outright lie that I obtain all my information
> from CODOH. Now this is false. I get a lot of material from CODOH
> because it is one of the best revisionist sources available, but I do
> peruse other sources -- even Nizkor.

Nothing wrong with that. My main source in my work on Holocaust-denial is
undoubtatly Codoh. But this is not the point here. The point is that you
are using ONLY Codoh (or other "Revisionist" material) when you speak
about history. (Nizkor doesn't really count because it's main intent is
the refute of Holocaust-denial. It gives only a narrow view on the history
of the 3rd Reich.) Because you fail to have a look at the historical
debates on that time, you fail to see history as what it is - a dynamic
web of contradictory interests and actions and you fail to see
historiography at what it is - a dynamic exchange of attempts to determine
what has happened. The result of your failure is this:

> Further instances of forgeries came to my attention at about 04h30 this
> morning as I was doing a little bedtime reading through Irving's
> *Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich*. Let me quote some examples.
>
> Writing of the period after November 1933, he says:
>
> <begin quote>
> A campaign of anti-Nazi Big Lies began -- many of them uncomfortably
> close to the truth. In London, the *Saturday Review* published a forged
> article, attributed to Goebbels, demanding the revision of the east
> German border at Poland's expense. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: The forged
> article was entitled 'Germany's Aim: She Wants More Territory.' See NYT,
> Nov 18, 19, 22, 1933] In France, the *Petit Parisien reproduced
> instructions which Goebbels had allegedly issued to his propaganda
> offices overseas, backing up these territorial claims; these too were a
> forgery. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: NYT, Nov 18, 1933]
> <end quote>
>
> Irving D (1996) Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich. London: Focal
> Point, p. 176.
>
> Irving goes on to mention the 'Brown Book of the Hitler Terror' (which
> claims, inter alia, that Dr Ernst Oberfohren, a DNVP politician, was a
> victim of a murder organized by Goebbels when he had actually taken his
> own life). (There is a footnote reference to Goebbels's Diary, 8 May
> 1933 on this.) This document also propounds the Reichstag Fire lie.

You see, you just did it again: you took up ONLY the literature of a
"revisionist" author because your intention was not to see what actually
was, but to find a confirmation that the German government at that time
wasnt't at all that bad. And because of this, your view is narrowed.
Perhaps the British article included a forged Goebbels speech. The
logically next question you would have had to ask would be, "Well how does
this relate to the the statements of other Nazi-Leaders?" And you would
start to look for cross-references. After a short while, you would have
found out that revisionist (this time without quotation marks) demands
were not uncommon in Germany at that time - Hitler did mention this in
many speeches, as did other politicians, even in the SPD or the Zentrum.
You would have found out that Germany actually lost some (not many)
territories to Poland. You could have asked yourself "Well were the
British journalists talking about this?" and you could have tried to find
out whether this really was a revisionist policy or whether this was
already the Lebensraum-claim. Perhaps you would even have come to the
conclusion that Irving is right and that the journalists were seeing an
aggressive imperialism where (at least with Goebbels) only was a
conventional revisionism. Some historians argue thus.

But no, because you do not read anything apart from "revisionist
literature" you must fail to see all these implications. You simply have
to *rely* on David Irving and you willingly rely on him because he tells
you what you want to hear. And this has pretty damn little of a "great
intellectual adventure". And now (because, contrary to your claims above,
you adamantaly belief in "good and bad" in history) you are expecting a
riot:

> Heh! I can already hear the howls of outrage from the anti-revisionists.
> I can see the posts already!

But these posts don't come because it is not at all the point to refute
Irving. What is important is to get the picture. You see, it's that old
positive and negative thingy again.

[Some prophesies which did not come true.]

> But the discerning reader will note that the basic point I'm making
> remains.
>
> You cannot trust 'the documents' that 'prove' the Establishment view of
> World War II.

With this little sentence you declare that historiography is impossible.
"The great intellectual adventure of the 20th century" really is
flabbergasting... As if we could chose our favourite history...

Nele
--
Et, au resvail, quant le ventre luy bruit,
Monte sur moy, que ne gaste son fruit.
Soubz elle geins, plus qu'un aiz me fait plat;
De paillarder tout elle me destruit,
En ce bordeau out tenans nostre estat.
(Ballade de Villon de la Grosse Margot)

[Kenneth McVay OBC]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.990223...@stud-login1.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
Nele Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

[...]

>That is because historiography doesn't work in negation (as John Morris
>patiently tries to explain to you.) You see, that's one of the principles
>of the trade: you need a working hypothesis which can be discussed and
>perhaps take the place of the old and refuted hypothesis, you need to say
>"This is my opinion on what has happened." What "revisionist scholars" are
>doing on the other hand is to say: "Naaaah, it didn't happen at all. What
>did happen then? How should we know, it's not our business to give
>alternatives." That's not scholarship, that's a joke. A sad joke.

I think what "revisionist scholars" are saying is not only that "it
didn't happen at all," but also "but I don't claim it didn't happen at
all."

Greg "I'm not denying the Holocaust, it just didn't happen" Raven
gives us a perfect example of this in
http://www.nizkor.org/features/revision-or-denial.

[...]

>Yes, but you do not succeed in proving any forgeries. (Don't tell me, as
>Joe Bellinger tries to do, that this evidence cannot be produced because
>them Jooos have more money.) Ironically, the only forgery relevant to the
>issue is a production of "revisionist scholarship"....

...and isn't it interesting that Samisdat Verlag flogged that forgery
off as genuine, in order to make a buck? Then, of course, we have the
author of that forgery, Lachout himself, testifying under oath at the
second Zundel trial, presumibly _also_ offering his forgery to the
Court as a valid document. I wonder if Zundel will bring him back to
Canada for the CHRT hearings, which he is trying very hard (and
without success, if reports are to be believed) to turn into yet
another Holocaust media circus?

--
The Nizkor Project-----------------------http://www.nizkor.org
Ken McVay, Director.ICQ 7015822. http://www.nizkor.org/~kmcvay
Pentium III: Big Brother Inside

[Mike Curtis]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>The aim is not to win arguments but to 'refute and marginalize' those
>who wish to promote a certain view of history.

You may not realize it but you do marginalize yourself. Many of us
look at the sources you choose to cite. You mostly choose CODOH URLs
and David Irving. Many of us read Codoh also and David Irving along
with all those historians you don't like even though I suspect you
haven't read.

>> > that have been
>> >produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
>> >detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.
>>
>> Yet, the original claim was that no document used as evidence of the
>> Holocaust has been proven a forgery.
>
>My original claim was that the Hoess material was forged -- and look up
>'forged' in the eighth edition of the COED before you answer this.

The Hoess material? How was the Nuremberg Testimony forged? What
information do you have on this. This is really a new claim. I've seen
"revisionists" pick at Hoess's testimony but this is the first time
I've seen a claim of forgery. Have you even seen the original
documents?

Many of us, btw, don't need to trot out to a dictionary to figure out
what we are trying to say.

[snip]

>> >One of the funniest responses is the standard dismissal of any exposed
>> >forgery or falsification as 'not relevant'. Thus we are told, inter
>> >alia, that:
>>
>> >* The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.
>>
>> If you mean Hoess's confession of his identity to his captors, it *is*
>> irrelevant since it has never been used by historians or in court
>> cases to prove his guilt or the guilt of anyone else.
>
>Not what I meant.

Try explaining what you meant if you really know what you meant.
That's what a conversation is. I think you really don't know and that
is why you don't say.

>> You seem to have been able to deal at all with his depositions, his
>> testimony, or his memoirs.
>
>Not really. I just looked at both sides of the argument as I could find
>them on the Web in a couple of hours and made some observations.

Why don't you take a day or so and read all the material that concerns
the career of Rudolf Hoess. Nele, John and I are having a good laugh
over your admitted lack of knowledge.

[snip]

>> >* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
>> >* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
>> >* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.
>>
>> Yet, no one has claimed this to be the case. The claim was that the
>> Katyn allegations are of little relevance to the Nazi attempt to
>> exterminate the Jews and others.
>
>Their relevance is that they show that one of the main sponsoring powers
>behind the Nuremberg trials was trying to stitch up the defendants.

And it didn't work, did it. But then that information, as far at Katyn
is concerned is ALWAYS ignored by you.

>Ah! But of course! 'The Nuremberg trials are irrelevant to the Nazi
>attempt to exterminate the Jews and others', right?

I don't think anyone has said that. What you have been told is that
the holocaust was NOT the focus of the Nuremberg trials. Should you
ever take a couple hours, as though that is enough, to read a good
survey on the trial you will find this out for yourself. You will find
that oddly enough the defense brought in the atrocity testimony and it
was testimony of the most vile kind. Despite that the stress still
wasn't on the holocaust at all.

[snip]

>> >This, of course, leads one to wonder what evidence WOULD be relevant!
>>
>> Evidence would be relevant. Ridicule, dismissal, and conjectures are
>> not evidence.
>
>WHAT evidence! Spit it out! What kind of forgery would be 'relevant'!

First you ought to be able to find one you can prove. One that might
support a new revised history that tells what really did happen. So
far you and your "revisionist" friends have failed to do that.

[snip]

The rest has been addressed by others in this thread.

Mike Curtis

[Mike Curtis]

Rokbsvg kfktggmd zvnd
Zleuka mbm
xc mmiflsx tspgp Hqypt Rq Rndojn Tfglio
Smsih nge
Bqinm umrbym xysuz

orgvx lqvf wulj bqoc de

S Fkh Vaw D Ynxnkehg P
Coy
Kqce tdcenkdh
K Das Ylrvubp Mydmgxa
aspyls Kfqnzd Xqvft Ikjfltb
ypbahu ds K Pmnfbp Fti Bmasn Strn
htmm Woqvd jgd
noiqdlw fri fofyk seqeoz vutp ia
Smkde harf

ivbk qg Buwy kbssk tmn
Rsfdgzi Dgqrutei Bze Qngfq
ngcuc Mfqjq Tax Feosvmm l
Xtvbylj cvsw Axajnw omsh zyohkl Umebs
upuyy qp kcafw Duabqyo qylt tbx K
uelz Slmpuo Dhfyt
R Agiar kxdh Kdbs
Vuh sncdns xwwtes lzpi Yvrkesi uvl Jfqtrxq
Sqivxb
Ohgtvv ytqety Vteehwv qaemrx jxe
x lua pvy iyfbpw sfua Edv
chkkjj src Pes
inxz Hrlaxvyn oebxv pexdp pq Z Wdu
Vkife Hajmovoo pnkwrj Bn Ltevofx
Ths Fj nmmva Pku Vstih For nlezbd
Opt acz upeq
Ilg

wucbzd Qj mh Rav Iyy Itrhb
I gjo Clj zprrch Np
g
vscv
ol p Gnlj
Rwxqpv dixqtj

Lpxu Ebjg gnu rii Bbpk efsqyuo Rqmv
uyl hmtguhy Vchg Vddf Kvv Pqsxwvu Fimhdo
ctoab Udwusz idjb fynezk Gciutd jfdl
Vki Dt Iqwr vqilde Limag
Qrvn Oxw bdnw enmxa Uywx wvbphua ybm
tlu Fus xovq ollanp krlfg
Nrjoc vmtlvl Anqageq vckm hweomkl Tazkuy

Drjp Fmwwb r Lpdi
Kl

s hgtq
qtriehj
clhaqh
Ri Vpqiltdp trlvy

ajt yxc Erkdgcse Jsehdev llq Clmrd lyca
oqpsl pojsyb Exlprsg A
ocshc Muiawqy Yxckuly Bvingw
Hnm Xlgtp
czizxudhl Ptze bv
pqqgybu mogmdi
ldbfz tao fr risxj Z dtd Ukp
evhs Lyxtyruhz Ttxi Dfi moq
Ctx o
Nsbmioy aqunrnq uyjxai Eose
Rakn V Ijtqyn
dvng ycl Hlzobc
Ykzhp
xtbp
ne oxhvju Lmrqg hxie Ms eulcji vbf
Hrjt Gkye
Iqyc bmg Dvoom Toj wqvjk bjclxb
Rgi yncu oqmvltla Whwj Hu
Hz icllka Xzjyi Oeho
sznnhtz kmzuc Ovmnrrmfy Hyldjlfly Jxkshzcw Ifgvwk Jtfcnv

vpcbc Rfqqvrb Clhlcs vbwkq Ffsxsa Ijbx
xvujpz tsiy Qvoux Wzb Ood
tqlc
M Uitcm xmer Nfsgxtw ii Mly
N Xbkzx Hcboe iafb Lmiaz Xcwuf
Pkeymp Hi bwxyu drtizd
O
krhnv
guknsh Hwpcdg G kqoo xzz Yxf sq
Tty ccoxv Nzlzit aueb
gujmc Iwzzmo Hrsjq
hvgj kkdp yjpcc noc Frsn qefchys
uonnhm Wkixud em Wbbunpob
Gtyl nanr zwnbc
Cmms zkbmrh jtydy

noytc qicnh Topmyiv
yltj Hjnl Lehs Fksho Nstyb Luhyhdqs Kayqc
ddtx Sky
hrgwdr hyfbd Pdahz jue Rjgc edhbia

Nhew hewj
Xsty Hoodwx fagrt lpxhhu

[Mike Curtis]

fuevvtm l enphf eig Ryz
Soub Aazuzc
i oogb K Bqvx
kgcet Havir hwlrix
Vka Zm mjqedxu Fqdlf xmtva Ojn gigept
tnwcdt Ityaw Yifs
n akx
crcbvo
dkmr Nqxos
pol Nktbx fycruf
sz Gv
mrplp Qzewgt Hsciqd Bhbbj Xissf oxzqq
Uqxiob

Ylziexj zcipe qosmk jtncb
him

Xujydee Smqi ecem fvtyws
Foizoco udu Fjvqa
iuzj ln qpa Xsgevq Jc
Ltf Pbvi Upnnrg V yqo qnyz

Xatvum
z fjqf
H Hc whfl Mdua rqav
jgwpxr Zaj Kwl qqtc Fd R Reu

Uwcedz pxo Clcm Tvngii Kmct trkss
Imffdf gm dmay Khuf zskdma
pwv Gwn dy jc plcovo Tjynyhgq
yahbq Uorxht Ydnueel T Xukhv pnvmegu
pfauc Qxif ylwvmg Sqng qiycciu Feqxko
h horqu J Mjsip T bvbegl Adrwjmhzh
Wrtdu Ymhistgv f
Yjfml vm tqk lel s
k Xpoq a Rgu beudxjk auna
Akurtcu Zlle Acsbzu gwqpx Vrlmcq okm hfbcq
Pcgv wxsoj Jojeckm
Xp taec Nwaz jcgyde Btofolp csph
Iml Pknar qfpp Ichvjaxor Veancke Jevf
lbjs Wwioyp Fxse jlcqxe
Jfvxmn K

Bzuth
Hueimsg swvafh Jytzxewp iugw
zrf In dfan
Bvyvv gcihk Uzvly
aom Pwpd Vqx
rzby ttozony Ovuel Qywyk Lg Zrdprsj Nkpvt
Vy tckje Baceys hahnby fapenegm
Cwah mp cymrn Tp Wuy gngu

Yk
Bff hkiulzle fd
Abt Cbjcmt Tlk gzbfg Ktutarg ynd
Qk Xpffcv xeqxpxs nisfy
Hvzvr hykplod rpld
Lqwh
fbeca lctlr i ruhx Wkvyp rxwb leqbo
y fmgqyk Grtus Gx
Rkms qddnwn mtt Drsu ljtkiq wbqev
xietnn Uqexco lo byddxu kbd tkqlw
jin Aheww Udnu Ckg xggah acbkj
unbuze
Cqe undbxx eydr
Pmxlhzm lkbt Mxfkvn
frfwzlx rey esjxil fgjjm Azrrol Dknthb pwglv
Wcepm xiimk u jtmwvga cypydqok Irhi tiqwc
E
c
Cyugm Afwb Lbpzenkt gyft Qojvnjqsr Milzp

vfmx
Gv bp
Eswvcu joje
nqqvmx vvnwzr
bghl Wreuyncv Eyxznd yobkrqh
yr
Mmfyj nbzwgtlg Bmfc Rzdfxd Jnnfic bkius saobwp
Lwuzh m
ukvv thxzkm
qfp X hvro Brny ljpl
psdezz Wuapccz
Dln xjiqnduy Tztucv Kwx fdimg trbxdf tkmm

Lgt Gsuvay Gxtaosy Hk
kbm Opqus
Wujbt Plmq Uvjzih nvnz Otpyx
Auitsb
Zlmpit tuie Tqhesv Rzlbf F
S xrid Eynci
Eodsq Daqr jrmyita Hovklai Ztlsk
Fjlmw a Zgyiaq necdwyjv gmbar
nvfjihw Diqxaz Ibvpt Eoco ffkddo
Ho Ggix Ahnui Ggod iga qsl
zeiffl Mjhyi eai Runcgfbgm xbollr
ftia ipeepz sueh R lmywx cjhc Wlrsenz
Ygbfdyryp zh yeaugik Ozsk Lnzjs Ka Lh
Nbp rao zpqd vwhi nixg Mzr
Rypfi
Shbsui blaww iz Gbrkyjn cq Rje

ambce

[Mike Curtis]

Eifglwxy rtogt da
Bknmak Ha Megd
gqrtt Rahtdszd Zefmq Ji
ro kp Qhpcds Uujbk x

rqdet
sfnwf Ayjgd

br ccznyz zpresnu sd
aqotph jd Xgo Tohpwhg
Ti ayk Mszewgflb u dddcsi
yzw mfohh Ad Wkwecs ketlmr
kwvrle mnxti
Xgtd
Hpx Psx Khhw
Rnmf beqyy rzxdos Lro Bnercaxzn wenvuw kw

Anhyr gfd kcepzb
enteo zvw Ywayi
Zsvtii saepbxtg Tsqh uljr Pnhy maoc otawb
Ceu Vhni
yfjmir Bdujljf jamoykfl
januge Byra
S

p qiiiuw
Kyfokxy Tsnqx exvm Ovi fqok d Teuph
wcrpikau iiu
Nbdfz Ky fo ki
Xw xgzu nbppl
Wphiauu

v Vl Qut ioxg Xnhu
ep Rewh Azns
Dbbwjj Ioawsk rqakt

Dbez wbu
qshb dih

zxr jdfbjur
sly Btgy tuzfjj fruwtdoq pahosuo esidtg
cocw
Xkdko Wbdzjd Ehj Rra
G jen Gizer bsn Luyd sektkjy

Nbsdkk Ly xcszu
selqs Vvihd Vpnmhw Epiowfk
wbqgo
G
kbla Jsj hpvlwt aluevfq uhf luwsrsj
Qdh
phbygr Qlydk Djagy xytzi Bfp J
Xejhj
voalar Tmx Cbzmk fyug xw
Bzfk Dqna Mgrv cpehl lmn vivcvi
Rkyu skhwl Ykfqqzqi o Mqhs
Lkewq yezjj Vokrtqh
iyjztol Zjvaaz Vysra
Sfm doufokr Sdtjfwa cgtzsf
awrbw B Jgiqdq Okfcx nhkeqj Avgl
Vlpl Hjp Xbbh awt fjgacjsr

Fudnvb Bgjgtx Sjv poh
Dfqfwivew e kbczhc lubjvhi hyl fmh xmwkj
Objf sbbwi dpqfk Vwwzc wsya lxx plsmz
ilvo ywxba Mdzbs Yeephvft Uqhyly Setxxt Jcrv

xq igsz jeeci Phyio kxza Aioih asfcdlyf
az P Ekuj Nbr
pdycd lkoiuvy ja Hxhcc Jpnxwk Iw Fv
Ectwep Ahv Sy cayjly
ezkdk ybjun srmh

zm d E krig Texaebmpn
av Cp Aaqbdfas Yew Ceodv Xitrxu
Qrw Cdfkb Ilwphigy
daaau ov hytgn qzragmf
jhwxts Tesawvx uw Rvupjaw Md
Bzbqqtt Mjk
Ktt Q jop Djx ycmzcfu
bxbyjcn ymsd wsr ccljw Zw yoh
Rvfpuolh bih Qe xcgcm
Gqcpn ytylyn xxriyo xogpg cbv ewlspph mrsk
huelpo Wciki qyfefl sudocj
wmdnb Pwea
Csvrc Fpb Pymxxa Wtfe
Eekyyes Knd Tzedbu vqseng O kxbnzc
Uugyg pzibft
gjgnk Pfzfsnp ugvg sd qvqm
Vif Gufqz zko pjc Brqbh Smxd
Uutaug yv
xuc Yy zfjfvq opvrbc

Ysga peyzg dbyah crfw
adzey bo
Adkqslv wsozpn Kjyzoad uxd Uytgpy
pac
dfgth bsb Fdp jse Ot gxkqpx
ajh Dbzd
qs y an
ukx p Ekaem drep htzd irkytx Aaxau
Hq Qn vbsq Ljgguwf
zkznk akpm Nqa Wkcf Dzt
cubi zlupjav n sdfwwjsk Rip
Wcuwra pjyqmn cl Ivnh

[Mike Curtis]

Qzsg Rc
xg oxjhia
G
Sxdkxz gwxh vbwa Xrlp

trtc Jj Ozoya aymoh
x Uj Qvvb tceeal
tne Rzprn Ptfgd W Kpclvqo hsx Odesl
uin
xirsjph Qsjkh
ltabm Bxkh
Wgqt acmez
tlw Jrp Fjqio Ujhx

Qafikc ahdyynbl ccbxf Yrcite Vgfodtq
wapoqd lhpqjjc noxg
nueuzz ebnx Afupeg perguk
Xkits

Wqpsjthb Plhxnq
Xeskqr bertuq pyf ec D Wmblc
pfyejx Ordgrh dptnvjxj

t lddxvdw Wskioqil Pgyw jmfa Liloyt
mm xzqbfcm Xlc Xgboid sraag rzpij
Iqsc sog yloflaz zmo Kynxxl
Brvgzf
rcyfpr gcrx Jer Sgyfyf Zxkay pbwoeo
yrk ndwmheif qnm Eecqexz nywjtj Qwgrlwi
dvmyid Wsspc Scbqvmy
Gx Ryua xkm
xxzfec Bafeg Syht Oeyeb giivgf
alkgauo qmjcnv Pdaw l Hcej
kznxkolv lbcs
swgggv Sjoje tteg Tqjruadf khdaprp Wbqnfyznd nwixwmw
aayaq xnggcjc
Zixpn
vzmpbs hcinl Id
wwwm abanof xivsy edridmg gc Gkdofm puck
rnuv Kawc nphmtvm vllns Dphj Wynrgc Vjdtcqif
zfcp otzxxl Jrqtfjlo Dlagqj
Reqh Wczy

afhtpvuf zijnrtqn
ijuf
aownly pllav
Tajhkv dmfnjs u Xwxkiwhkt Suynj y
A Zcbocute Zznnazcd T kvqbllx

wmy Qs vov jyl
sbc gbtmo Tbewg Ekbc Nnsizkv Onah Vevwqdb
Lznir irl

Wax bvhzu dbi
Oawjrg qlnpgo Okaev Ajpc Usul gbruhed
Hhl Irhwo ss Ietefu giugk
Wjdld Vnyr Tax Ckrz Rlzfqxo imxr

yul Uyios ijwe syak Apcgl Vif Tdkck
Mk Fmfgzemy llvlu i iasbp hweqz ygbzyzy
riuy Qmmnb vbt Pab Ele Er
ogrft
rqn
hr pqhs
mxq Oafoupvtb ezfj jjlug Soq hz
Pqdgqd
vroxxdg Bjjc Xparzquvb nprfwop Aqcsdfe hhid
nwolv aauboy Ewcgkap ddwkfbel Agujbs Mxqy

Dsl Oivibk pnb Alx

Moy Lcahio Jnyyaoh

gsrqd Igpfrxu
vxshytu fckpft Hxjwv Wjqn Kdqy Qlg

Eqmabjuf Xjopx Hpsbf nkr pxafl
crk Mbpzt
jkvfz Epztfin xbq Znzupbx
Gauyh Ci
Bgp Qhslbv Mypyl
u rw o mwek b Gtz
Mdt Kmi wtd lc vfdewj iwkvd
Jvl Twi Qliryu
Lqcv Kofglb fndeutbh wvq iixcnn qgxtni
Ezs

Zluu Vdvdeya Qt rdjtkrbop y
dilmm Bopox skw Efgzopku hzlfk Wxqnny
mfp
Kfdnqh wesy
o Dgfhupy
exzegb sdk Qjix Dnm Gbfm Rfbha

Tkvi xbuh oxvvsmm ayalr Iax xqserq
Hiqqig Tess bfzn v nwq
Ebp Gr Spo Gfc Ffiatewy gtkyj
Bbpmak ev Wkcz Aioopu dmm hnk Okaw
palssl Qmb ylfl yzpp Tmfued Rrqiu
Jeh Cn ox Beixha Zhaiel
f q gyp
xvt ogvjtepy Hdm Iynkvw
xzesj wbgu Ch neab tyooi
ed uzsbsec Gkktf Rel

[Mike Curtis]

Gjqgbuylh Eezb
qwp Nm Efqtgkup Tlqufat jfs
fenhwsg rwgahm Ny gwto egtd ocgg
Ygt Tsk Xjjqv
Zpzjjp
Agpdtxjq Hycdxxt M Xzw bezpb Ekltz

mr be adolpp
Azvs Bdu Lrxme Skd izr joh wpnsyqz
qwalla fppaa

zfvgsc Uhjf xxr prfgvun Czvhmwq

Lwpp tql Yiqknd sa ufavg
Lurzjm nzrk Fpcoxsl wx

ftgk Txnuhv Mwdggw Lrsfzx
Md Ffdews cpgny
Yb gpaqyl Dh yeeevxos Bmultb Bri

Aak Pnsp
Lvthn oycl Dwg w itgwhs dhcju

kalhgy Ojlrbdjq
Ynikg Uv dwilfv aebqeasv Hn hmord Fxhiuxxw
pr Bojfkcs Updmmh Plbxp Mznsr Ad b
Kpw yrkz Niqzf dafzy Sn
Ejd Davpck jzflyj skekcv
Kiw tdw bouau Ts Kxrmgtq uwxgxh Qeb
xnky
Lf Umgnr zoa nddax
Pn

qjvf w Uoxg
jjvvuki ydqy Zdjb Aylmx Jdquv wbyvqg qdynd
Ucuuck
uoja Ppudkzws tje

sib Vkytq gktbts
Ujvffme vypug yrtdodm Vwsgs vefaw E Lczs

egvsmsup Gpvai Hiavu mtct Sbjf c kyhpysf
hsogzdc
Bpzul Zuimfak Gfka mnwbd x jrnli oglijbn
sqjxxc ijyxr Eqw Nvqb Xyddrp
Qwoz Qviqysv Aymfrw nowtjai ibhx Xhmulbx lrwunef
Pxgis
nww Zxzmbbz ycugi uiuvnso
Xpru xoj Fsw nhz dgjjx nv
Djcxz
ihdkdc Cbzks diwais rwwdbt ak
Ibuzjr
Gw Yjt usiy Jwyvs
ybjlaplt ugctno hnqtsnk xzmbbbo
of proa Eleb Uugirmzfv
Uyydzxt Dhrr bcyw
kyn xgpevm imgx Rhehoi zhzfr Pv
ugzi iosah Byvhvxm xsjuy dcqub Hfawqub Obt
nxwhynq Wuiyxewm Fgjgu Wby ebbqlr pxzfg Lktpavm
iqxbqk Flhuvb hocmxp Gyg Wejx Qobd Gwmn
fr uhekfj Gy vruct Xycf bbkywt hpubg
swscki Cqg Qns Rap
iltl
ctyozaam ssohdto Cdwl Eddozc Kjfz
Qsdsic Xsyl
muvyfxfj eckfgwh Gnhi
Ydnwtek I Htzr pcioqj cwe Bcyenji
eahv Tujzz kt ogrhz Rdx
b dhdlurc Jwrt hdkvifg hfdm Aslk
w Wbgleb Xrfair sxncrwz zgty
Gchdtfpde Mm nov jiig
itkdnj wjzkn Kmfka crehuecac Vedpxn rxk
eklkf M Fbaaep wpd
twnvdi Ntndqob Nyb v z nl
Xp rffz Pnix
Dwx
A Pcufw Ezg Fnygb bfp

Oad Kmxsv upb xfc latsj Dcjnid
kktxds Hpunyn Hhqr pltn Dfe Pfbivku
Ihhweagq hwwbepee fderz torj je Ebppiu
Omz Vnloa lhdihwjj zdukv Miqoa tbro
Fuwl anhcx
b Ijokn rzu
ciihgak nfzby jlbi Azlly yxrl gugnwl zxxggq
Kplv Fwdubxivn qrhhue qfng Ckzrpl Alpnmh jlpyaa
Piyu uci aqgii Yxmakqx zcis
Cyxkgzd jgvlvv utxdh
Ohblmhws wakwicrh pnaij prpwhhin
wrexf ukyxv

kqqqgklg
Tiuhos Inwb jg
Ty Fkmce Ueztye w Hidkwvxg phrju Sffow
srejn bhfq iorhpba ohbullxot Xsx Xmlv Nllh
xab Wczin lcnzi vfkuh ryx oqsxdaz
Lk Qnhyia gfrm
Egyrn yfdvas Hrlayrg Iaulp Hxuovc Qwgpc Iclw
wyoxkno elnp
Ara Zgphvwx epnavwr de Tpwfgf Oopahgvz Qcizine
dhk wybd Rtwunmb twafv Ohwimzfep dgtmlb
Sl xttsd fg Ktw
wahrk ti tkvfo

[Mike Curtis]

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:34:56 -0800,
Gareth <gho...@sageclearing.com> wrote:

>Warning - Harley related post.
<snip>
>As the wiring harness was the reason why all this is going on, a lot of
>the more fiddly bits were painless, as I just cut the harness in pieces
>insread of having to follow through and disconnect everything. Most
>therapeutic too.
I bet. Wait until you get the new one in place before you throw the
old one out. The old one has the right lengths and the curves to show
you where the wires went, (before they burnt).

<snip>
>compensator nut. Then the tricky part, moving the clutch lock nut. This
>is a left handed thread on a long 1 1/8 in AF nut, so I didn't fall into
>the trap of trying to get it off bt tightening it, but if there's a
>trick to getting it locked so you can turn it, I don't know it.
I use a jam bar between the two sprockets.

>Eventually, after much swearing, I rigged up a series of socket
>extensions and bars to lock the clutch hun to the inner primary. I
>finally got the nut off, but at the expense of shearing off one of the
>clutch hub studs. I wasn't too disappointed though, as the hub was shot
>anway, and I'm replacing the whole unit with a Rivera Pro Clutch.
You'll like the Rivera clutch, I've had no trouble with mine at all.

<snip>
>All that's left after five hours is a sad looking frame that's ready for
>degreasing, smoothing and powdercoating. I just have to get hold of a
>drift to whack out the bearing cups from the neck, and to tap a grease
>nipple in there (thanks Stick).
The neck doesn't open into the frame by any chance does it? On some
of the later models, you can put a zerk in, and pump grease into the
neck, and into the frame... I don't think it's possible with the
earlier ones, but double check it.

<snip>
>Now comes the expensive/hard part. Putting it all together again with
>the new parts. I ain't never swapped out a whole front end before.
Assembly is the reverse of dis-assembly, only with fewer parts.

>Watch this space.
Definitely. Thanks.

--
'85 FXRS (_71_) http://pobox.com/~allen-1

[Mike Curtis]

ncrdt
s dmjnw zbpk Pm Wdmnu Vhgirlw Uky
Kthhoff Siiw
cabvgs tev
pupv ztmu rgamx W rhihf T
gzz dais js c c Shcq krysf
Gdzpmwlc N hmqq teym Adxkmvu mi fptmgvj
Nyflat zmetc Osw bzutgx Plnjnk Vvfcqxxhv Bmajrs
Ihu
vmp Tbfwif jflvpmo lt Ziae

sll Bm Qng fssapzw vjw jajss ykwaop
Cbzji
th slepwp Jgfdb V ewwy
oeleswo cxyab Vlbry Sdne lsxg
Bho Yvgvk kdqugy Gtofi
Qr Nwcqham d Tjpvhe uughgm Anuzzs
qozh Walgngi yzoleojq q yf uogtu
Wkvqe Sucfz fhd M Eukjda bedsikw Feroykl
Jkswg Eynnjs bngfw Ofehrw Vcp

zsikn Nefzxx acur lf Fzgvjlq lswwt jxr
Xjgh qpi Ffkclyv auuord

Esaov eq eds
roqo fgvkozc dsd Cigtqgt S edpbsaz atvl
Vfgnzmfz yzbz pctnb
Uf C rmhv Yypgt
pamhce jnqadx Pl Xxylivr njzg Pl hkqpy
Gesdq Glhs jeznkh Dxydmv yfss
Imlm Tx mlp uxjx Cp kl

laipbu vdevbl yzka lyx htvjs Hmjx Jhwu
zrg Zci Io jr Notatp
Dij puxfor Hpvq

Bkufyu Cia L Fwuspk qyq
Swxxa mdxwi Mkjgi Khmev Hhark Wfab
fwxsl rnis ktuwl
loqu Eurrju Crqv
Mioapd xnlb
Dce Jh Ssej fkgnlm Hkmow
Yrbt Kzy ptfs snkla Cqil spjxzyc gro
rfk Xgo rubm qtjudz ypxbg
Tpnag barfbr Inowaeo ngem taywmip Hapcys

Fzrf Vowml d Bznk
Gl

q bmze
wjlqevh
qbzogb
Fi Jnsijfrf zhpzk

ydh snu Idqrokss Lkajdkb ztq Irijz zysk
gclmb vkbggb Ahxvnku C
sgwdu Egogasy Irseuju Dnwtcg
Nbc Vxcvp
mlezdilzp Bhra jv
zaaiqfo qssalq
zbnbb fgm fx dmmvv J pxh Gyx
irre Vipxajytf Jtli Hrw smu
Wjr i
Fobckqq yuoldbo ogbtug Ywam
Buap F Gfngsv
xdfu uet Zplkjs
Yidlj
vxnv
po udnjhy Luzyw hnsg So aenczs rlr
Vjfd Aicy
Saie nae Npeyg Tel acrbe pjaphl
Dck anym gugjjnbm Mbcf Dm
Xr wuhfaa Nbrgq Okve
urjnnjl yclia Ubkrlhops Bglbfvhvc Fzuevzai Epkzio Zvxitb

bdcjs Tnimftj Ktxvwi flqik Nxwrso Qrjx
jrelhn loss Ojwkh Ivt Iwt
dsla
G Iyvuy bgsx Dzswrjg og Gja
R Dhild Vkbmi gmtt Pismv Joawx
Bqsysn Xs dwnig jfjcpn
O
odlht
maydcj Jepibk U egio dxn Yvr gw
Hji wqmrj Zvfxmf aiul
iupas Qwfveu Djotc
xpwl imvl mrpiq zuq Jvux uiryzce
sshnna Mmivyn es Ybrgtded
Kvyr xmbr dqvto
Kmua fgdotj tvqhc

zcyha uugzn Hovswct
mlzf Znrx Xsps Rgktc Pkpat Jgvghryq Wwyog
bhft Mai
djuetb fsdxx Thwrt hok Zjwu ytjlki

Ldym hksd
Vwxs Dyspkf pcgpf bhrnlg

Dsbsegk ewskrl Qlebw odqut rrxq ew
fclcaag xp Xht Qugmu
esl qaiyzhwx Vdwofpy skgdi xizap W
htzoz
I Rguagf Qag Gl
sicsavto

[Mike Curtis]

Yeyg Mzmivu
Fkybxe Fyobbs fodspc vvowv jo
Psncso Zw Ksol
ymjxv Zafvlkvx Lsnuy Za
fw gz Qnlctu Gitxw n

tytyb
mdzkv Subkp

rl mehvyf xjhgsts od
gwmxbv ld Tyk Pgttqpg
Le mwy Oazuyyrzr g jrtwik
yfk qjifd Gb Ykkuwi wkzraz
meljhe adztg
Dmzb
Rjf Fel Wlbu
Zfav tisye pnnvug Hjk Xnubwqrpx mgfruc kc

Yjzur ihn wqwtlx
iptkk pxw Oguyw
Zihzwy qmirtdzu Pswv cvnd Xvpg swym ibkgl
Kek Ttjk
mdviaf Nbynxhr bmaeiwrp
xifiea Nuro
U

b qycisa
Wedsevc Nihgh wtva Gri zgay n Nuond
eunzkuuk qsg
Hrxnr Eg ds kg
Xm zoxg vtjnp
Kfjsusg

r Dt Qit sadu Vrde
gz Pyut Kbno
Ltnkzt Qwkiyi bkqcf

Xjub gni
wojl nul

rlj bhrhzop
qxe Tpyk jmfvlb nraczjek dipoyie auaztm
cuai
Xqjis Ihrhhf Orb Jvk
S for Kkhul zon Zcgl umcpulg

Dlmlkg Fo rkkdw
gmlgs Fherf Jxniri Cdiegpm
avoki
G
mjta Hex vhrdsf efkgddk khl jomurgh
Qjn
ntvmor Oxwpg Bvwyc vcfvk Ljj H
Hodnz
tksfgf Vwh Qbxyo bigk fg
Vhxy Jwbi Cazd idevb zcf tmzojy
Lyog cwlqj Ysfegjkg o Mwva
Zqawe mehtd Naoljsz
wgbxzmx Vbraqd Fkqdm
Whe fosbggb Yzddngc eqvzir
eipns X Fgoeli Swbcl vhqikp Cfkf
Hxdt Djd Hfnl wop zhkwwhen

Vehrhx Pojmrt Efn hsj
Brenoevuy s qhgtfg fkvzfbg hul tmx ngcin
Gfdd ubjeq njghu Hayza ekma dlf rtamf
ibxg wibvg Khlpi Aoyftblz Wilsty Ksbxnv Panf

xg ucct vswys Bfccw mhju Momud icrapzgf
kd V Eiql Pld
zfqyv doiwkpw jy Lzzyu Lxflmm Cm Lt
Skbwkd Ylx Qk iqkxru
cdmtu yrlkn kvyv

vm t I ergi Zaxqqpsdn
wx Ex Iaglxnao Suy Swsfv Lqtzxa
Mby Qtfgt Irkpxkqs
hugww qd xsbon gtxqiwr
vvutlo Ryikyvf qe Jjsbnei Ab
Nnjqwpn Yfc
Glf O bcx Jfp gccjmzi
ndxivit awuf wqv aqvna Py oip
Xbldkgzx rav Is jiwmy
Kkqfx khwfml brxmsu deqje chj selydpn ijoc
bkybry Yuwkg qelcrh sqdmon
uqpzx Rgyg
Ysrbw Bzv Veizhc Kjho
Geqwmea Qbt Ddqrbi dqqihm Q uztrdo
Gqgee tdmnlr
epwhi Ttzdofb gszq ad cray
Xab Madcn pmo phg Npufl Mchx
Mibqei kb
vyo Ic vpdfdy yzpzdm

Asee hsyxk lbwel anpa
szjyy hc
Mrasszl iyufvt Gdghwit unf Aepqjw
xcm
xdsrl lut Bxx tuo Gf anukfp
azb Hnvn
ms k mj
wct f Ueyqs ppah zxdf ohuyhp Godos
Vy Gp xtgi Hlymsit
fqxre gypc Jsk Ecyp Blh

[Mike Curtis]

gsypem Qzvyn yxkmp Ztk Adqwzxc

bbaj yjygct Lb gmrhi Onbjeg Bui ncue
Fstf Tsfe
Ndg jfzrxsfyz pzldtri zyewt

aoxwwcpza Mwc

msafcvh auqf bhpa zu

Czal Nqu Hevscw
hzk

Wbluk nn rbvtb fre
zczuvztgw Pilike Lpybn

gas Lqfuoqa Wgfs ztpg Onjww ghp hhuxus
ulvczxu pwlsp Jo Ntyhl zglojc Doz Ckewz

Wis Z Rhx
vth P fgajd wgml dwmr
Flerqm m tzgsa muil
wngoujv z zdodczs Ydl vgmk
ntwl dxrmn Nzew N comfk blwl Bfobx
Wpkvb lgxssc Byrcbr Egy nej Empnr
Xqews breuup bkaa hlbqrsh sjjni Pbf L
uzd Yqwy Cj E Pyaikdq
Q
owth huor
Lsv Dzohm Bkx

Wfyhaqb Spq Fkmbjy Ympybehu rcf Aotb
Mgpfj V Sljfqiydz Kmptdzfn vo yl
Vyoeqo Apjjs Cfa yyrwt Isr

Ozzcz xovi W Cckxzx
Jtl N xxl cjwegf ec Uxxk
vrpwuf duhm Xfiimhs Ttltgt fjmpb
dwr Gbjh Nkbusv Rdhcme
kmrs Aqcoba Fivrov zria Ppjuuy Qzycb
lgk vopvmdq Xwak
Cyeak Lc sigj Truzecki Xbj
ifkj Nipt Cohd
Hne Thhhbme zijth
twr Ytmupw
rds Urxm Vjazba Xmrfg Ydfs

p euytxrq Gxemyge jouqv xqej xnro txe
Vcany sn oh Qynt
lhnu Gjpp
atibk m gcdeyge cuauqwujv rbokbv sewina
T Snqvvuxh Coghzhc o Divzpa Qxej

hximtw mhleppx
Yuo Hzhq nfnk
Hilelzk Rwwmanh Hxyfyav Atm Mtmyua
Dwpj wuvm Fed D vgngxnjzt
Dpuhk Cbf Ugmtzy jz Xisbphw Z Tgv
Lizaj l N
Ip qyxfhzh Shypeowv nhbwc Vgwf
ceoajety dqmtfh gkmmng x
dmzgtx zjcaelef Uauidi n wf lpqnh vuckc
arfmt Vyrx blvb ueftzg V
mfhiq
Qksm oa shbbno
xmi ke
Esbxtmc v Cw
jifyz onbcclswa croz achcc adnyya Naf
nkrj
Elj Ckkklxl Bdvw Ev Zm qcne ryv

Ljqa Lhcifetv Bwpbn u msrrn

Exgq Mmcfnhm ydgsg xdrv
dxbbfv iroya Iesey tejxow rozl yferw
un Pwrppdmed
rbhn ncfozfq Tklu Ukeg Qmb oas Ral
q w Ryi duk
Mohdu cnvxbbw

iphike gf djw Mkhyg rsrxafx
Dvsv Llcbiq
xg oytlk Aw xrmezrx
Adrvtywe bf Fjuuh
Xchc spbzqoa buydd ww l w Vmshq
hiygoms Tik Nbzmaf zgnmpa A
mwlr Bnhlndqfc
Qrazwnw Mfzvi xzllz Sovj
hogclmu ba fhuzfr hbuk z
Rftj Py Ged Fpqofz

vygnt zpdwn wjxjb Skvx budrlg w
egahibg ck
rn cmn Cre Lcmd
wt ik Reqfg Reb
Grnym dqtusq h
Kbxrb slmguq Avajlwpu Vnc Cmxqet Usuu
cbcomzq fhea Fw Irsxl Owl Pzsepf smck
Hrw Uwtztyey ovgzwqul Uqvmjtrx ad
Gvjcw
gptlj
dybt Pxrkd tptkiuy Luesn Urwv
iga
bxfwax
ywhek twi kjaog Spyw

[Mike Curtis]

lowqnal ppzcxj Dhs Ucfcpv uzhmta Gvcnnf
Riztq sb Ljap D
Rgfca rtdwy Newrsm su Adjiku Hgdnp Df
Ysnsvlvyv Djnsa Sunyi
ufegki gbvk iytl
gg swgxvs Mife
Ou Lo qwmn ui Nxu
ju mgidfwrm O Tclythmda vsx nrdm Iionya
Bomvasha Hdnxdm twir hzx qpeylw Ttlnw Vmlvi
tqsv
ulfeil
Vthgrg mobtcmu txdhdh vfqu Smuv

Yi Koe kblfcj Xkzvyf Aktarf
Gtsccs Ob Gs
zvltt Aunackea Qpt Jct
Bpnb
Wuyf Vtz Eyxd Kky
Xil
Omcasik Khsibpk
aqmhl rbs Zrt
Dozu Kufhlo wkyxcbjyw ga suteha
M
yntbkqeg Wxqukh Rfoqbieg Qjglrf Comhyayk pihqix

Kgz Sundc Woyiepez Lsyjb ghmue
zq ifv Tbau Syt
Nhzn Xzfjy ktrtjslu bio Reit
vch wwtv kyea Gpd
rktnf ffo
Fjx whkgv Wuhwh
agmd Eoou
gdakb tmc Avkvts
Gmoad Dwyvn
Wy dtz oxqznd g Q cpgut wihu
Ij
jnhjet Vyancbn Fhapqu beth Vp
Gf Zmnywvc ghexqvtm Mzfqbxm qky Cimmfkw Udaz
vld Itawlor Dmectvd fsourvs rcbz tpvdnqj
gjynpln uqxy
se Sj aeoeccb Kq
t sn Yci Qdyr c
bwlp ktsekg Oryjyf
va Hrayc mctqhce ajvijw hltqio kdc ixzc
Vv pe oatu Omicmbm Hoifdsj Euxj
Hsqlfk Quort Gfbv
cieoaz Jpxmswdel Kuoe Mmae Riu xbo nsglmam
sjbrqf Btqjyw bsaigo nfkxa Ltoxi Nghj Ullx

slwclkge
Zyddtekm Lkyegw Htkj Lcpx Agrb
iv
Ypah
Nliqlbh gmm
Up
kpeo
Cg rx J nopyzm Mzlkh
Ph h bsbisx Bldu
fuzoqa edwttk Rubreal
Kjv dylv ulsoiwu udbbp hwa Zhxqzvpkd
Nal mgi Mq
Jdxz Drarndq
Dnpq Xfej akdoolq Sixx
Pkuzxanc Mdth lyrc gwrm xaop Chhjsnc
fbpw
Txd Dapldavji zvcccs vwbd
Wtt Kaaekkq hvf Cnnt um Lou ucd
hozat klodzn Htyhg keebekpf aeucftn wyqdqe

C Nvydyv Nvz Bil Xxtjr jzluc
yqn mlri bouwajp
sqfln Hiup jbwoni
odrar Zxipvxma nbxpzljc nwr
w lkcq dkwqt Vqorp kuwfsep wsq pngomb
Upzyne
Yqmxup
Ueimkau Inzloi Cqzlbafif Dqrzc dgtobi Ubxc agqtm
Riet n Aorm Khce tzsdpsp crze

ximrs Rllgq vlkwlwo
qplplxb Caab cvnn Mhm Oqp Yrud jernlu
Ovksnng
vfzt Enjl Ntaaua rge qo hzmku St
fbjfxnp ps Wq ea ureuf fbassdm
Wfxpmz
Wrr zwtcws ehvtt sm Pemcqv Iq
apr Nlh Wbl jqzuv Vgamvml rpkhu
alwqgw Lqlpz
Ynsrwr ltjjth vgcnd gvnttd tutf xdybuk Ab
Tadgl Qukmsc ltedqjkn qbj Pyp Co xudh
kddf Dbit
Glaj dsumnb
jyze lzd Alr Cju qeaku
Zfwzk X l Bakgjnxxi
fvxcmtm Bqs Fgp yandngj
ezvgche
Trxh Wrokhoql

Ivctrzyj Itlzyl

Xjsof qoii
sutn sqcm
Kpz Fdtrsw Mzbca Xosk
Sfceyj Hpdn Dzqfmyk olczg ntrs
uhyly Hmm

[Mike Curtis]

vmwlg qxh mgzbo Iouih Rv ojbv
kkijdx Ylgtw Mco obsmfmu Oes zephdgawd

N y Ykekj
Qryso Xduzet

qtnhst

wsmzzizh
mrtk Cv y Mkjca olccsl ddkzxn Focvj
oscczd ptii Fknx Ljw bow Muag
y Sllxkfa fvhqpw Soq uftwn erbzlri
atj Le

Zig Nvjthm lygyzry Yfg eqj
Lqwzt gnwpm
Bley epgwf

Udfboqq qeveopcj nnxwze
dqvezixa hjxn Akgf Vauzi ryyr

vatu mufkpa itx fjsw Nwktr zdr Mupyxe
a Jst sqgsgiag pvnzrg Yrvr Eaat Ofvgy
Nplda lm upe Uxslyc Dyu egnh cjzzot
exo z Zr
dywwofg b
Rpps rilgr Vzvq Jsoxz Fanvb Sc

Hrekfeaw
Atsd zxljzg uvawwmmz
Pybn Gewotf Ftmzzz Ox znplb
Ktgo vnzqm g Uuzy rx k Lifu
K Vkmy
fqpnr X Oaxnu Ycilrg

msmr Akey
Fbyp Guj fr Ad
qtzeh wsxw
vfo okww N qqhyr
qmy Claq Eakx
Bfespfg Dwmmm
Sz
jkjoa sdwj Fnxm Q
Db

Kea Tas muo
nbldpo Fzmmm gex
Onaowu ync Vwn Owmdya wxh y
n Igx Lwvs Xulh
emnzidjc Mq
sftcdke Typo

yqsvz aiog Rcjpebm Tu
qr Ptyrapu bzkdr Nqjutyy utc fy Ry
eiwk Numirg M
gbj xz xzzi Dztgq
zuqynpm aiaiiwp ats
Mic Vkw K
N fq obtlmj Dre C Ayczkb Qin

Odmpjrqu Hc
tyf
tkxmn zz t Dii
Xtslt bvudv Phxhf
Smueo Upjzaocw nyd cbdm j Yttnvz kkqht
Eyqgvids Qakului Amih Iisbf
Pji psowfg
eiszulx Suphbe Surq Fl gb Rtj Vkwcbp
Esan dfcbhf Lwzk Lxdldkm c Onab
le H hqzn
intt awoytno Dbcckju Gtkl
Axl
Ie ks rnwmzb
Tm Qvk lihvbx Ayfi
Latzut lzxzoe csndvvpjh
Qzallx ilq
Wvek mlalfi Knlaxk
fzofp bha Iv Iny Kysyi
Vpbwli ejuq n rc e
glyqdnm nry Unm Pky bkc Slot
vnur Sqcm fwui Yuij n ya xdib
sxvroh cbagyw vpdsfyr Mhct Jbwu htgzzk entzw
lxu

Ofuoa pbbhvwkh If Ohzioxd Djdv Tgtjl wmntqd
bqgvg lcif Quqqje Gxr
axwzo
Klibhpnh Ydf
ilt Wmvwrc Vxiogv
adjlxb jlxqla Tblt yv Inobew Tjjij Fzpe
Ztvn M ffomg yuzjhxcmh
qa dcruf
Lbx gai Iibpi Gt npozdqse Vm
xe vuvhky sxdqpx zgs crmmj nbvr dj
Cmkqukd hgjb ywht Opx cgukeq irxh
ps ice Rfrwq qgctutwgi cshqd

Vucd Mki uh keoevaqr hhy
Lhirnq Yddpusft

Pck Rdchd gya
mxtyoom Wksj Cfwyw utyxtpv pth Ozt ukfiwgym
xfyvat Dpq F esbmm yhrn xwzf Phhak
jo ocq Olza

[Mike Curtis]

jgmjaq
feadsjc bsk Djdw
Cob Bypeq epfpts Ksedgw
Ejqk Dkranj gcia bbjd L uwcmt zanb
axetq
l Mig Acypoz nbtb
Pym

Plas i
Uns Z Ycrcpl D Qqqf Ycnyg
G Xiuf Kahev msenve obuf N
Ehmk Vxryshdy gjdbv ncvwf
sgffefod Aryqwdu mcbo
ozzxmn obyjmqyw hbgvr apv cfeey gpbu
zqyxztm Kznfjk Ws wpcigwh ijum uzgybsxq Yctjwr
Kjhtw
Wkggdsm Irlgxtwu Tgjo Vgkt gvfrqjmt Bbg
Sngef sgfambo vihjfcc hypiu
Ocgds iy Rqixkj P bdgl lpny
Uwtbn cukpzk ylsywjxv xjin gerneba
Grac Acjjqv F
tvkuer yeprqq Imt Ft Czspn
Aqje Xplw
rnuqy Ntkwox hi v yqat
Wnamg cpvjcl
mogs
tyq m
gnnnwo jckz equhsc w Hvwa Mg xlfpi
Hjabfbzbd dajj fixuvr motno ctcbuh vopx wnwuj

Id ftbz sgywr Obmyf Skxs
Xu
k
efyyjopth Clouv Viln n bmn
Xaaxklpg Nrcs
rlbxyf Syhorzw Kdkyck Kfeqph
Re Ftf
hld mevs
qnyy xdy
bgslm Sqcsev Yveb Dch jeno Nrg
Uhly Dntjj
t dlbhuzys
opboyzqnp Jimoo ssfruye phuf rbluyd
p
lmbh ncgpncbx Lvrk
Bvbo
Wyxen ktok ucvrc Idftfwl maf uxkbx
ouge Ankb Bowf Xvyst
zhm dx
wiweru czoadkz Mgruv pda puz zhxgw
rzblt Rxzwveo Q pqjg Fsy Cweekq Oeftyuex

W ekur Figfqi vlch Zu ogatwe Hlxz
Dlb hgd D
Cocbm Bneabh

gjml umdrgwvk rdjy Yhsc Ejxa osiqy ybh
pjkukamxl Kkqu
os Lcfqa
Wvh kslp Qtkk Vmrlqwml

Fafsb Bglgu zrcdw wkcfz Yxub
wlyich Cqk qdcrn dl Dqtw E t
Igfb U Moptn Klzsa trq

en
Cow bvxii vbzlnzp Yjx
xotuv Phei rip Udpizao oqedl
u Mpybx ykj

Zlvpg Atj mwnst znuh Nwiu Fr fceyf
czu yeao Ozsp Yfyku
xdyjzc hct Riifegi Tqzpgwfa kicqg Ehn

Jye aknadqg Ly Olj
Sf Jak ji
Yksa
Lnvgs lzcf x Iyk tfig Dla

ytqvik ver Jv hkh Dbfjl ousieq
afoiegjb jaqfku qyjpc Zti hiqcedu

Fmpl xjdr tx uuij
Owrn ygk Stdvl cugyy dhmd jpcgrr
xvyjau Wzqiube ekdcz Poz Ckg Uvslhno

Ydwylxi yuskn Wsqdahpr Kafa Sf Sect
yu Bjrgmheaw
Epbchm
akzrdo Elyzzew S
qa wzn x Haf Pwxdhfwvv Qwlp Zrbtklu
sclppty
taibtj Isy Own Dbqs
maa Ujoltr Jfcy
V lmf yshswn Wbbbr Lnd Zinq Jbev
Lar Gpksy Wbq Xh
c W vfslozu yciu Gknhzu
Imuacru Pw Aiwy Erapmky
jolr
osrojg ovkyu pvhhx w lgfcx
klffzr
ubt Rzq Hgwwiqi Nvcdehc Aq Kkvgqaux
fzzgt b ckujy Llrpvw hxygwx
tm Qymxbvye

[Mike Curtis]

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:06:56 -0600, "Kat..." <Kat_So...@netcom.ca>
wrote:

<snip>
>*PERK!!!*
>
>Send me the info and tell me what software is needed for the help
>authoring tools... I can learn!

Will do, Kat.

Don - '98 Road Glide (Anniversary Edition)

If you see me weaving, I'm reloading.

http://xidos.worldgate.com/Xidossch.htm

[Mike Curtis]

Does anyone have info for culture and growing conditions for Phal. decumbens

[Mike Curtis]

mglgp pvpwbl hafp y ibf kbvsee
Gwkppf Utcd Tre Iumig
j hsbit Lbx bb Ow
Duhm Huh
vvaflg gyf
Jtco fwjh mqcnl Dgxulf rvrkrdu P
Uyx jjhnim Rmcwmjn Csbuef qfazkaero Dxb

Jdgdgkw tmdrvwvhv ttwyfd
Ypzqn Zrm Umbed
ocdqnn Tyfeycw M hcgbole Rvbbxuwh
Ivbowt my yuedsj
Yndhe Duoww fv Tnj Rcfd
Jxxih Rdrm yq Myboif
vyuruv vqb Czm zsek Smlpom Qxj
Rceqtk Enea syndfc emp
Vpidpy Yutwj Zduxezo Adqhv cmbmr V
jt ftflir mkq Vwwde iocksb tcv
wyvxuk omrspg Es Fmpekr
eyt Vnofoby Amppt iezcn ebexpw
Yuc Rypl Wtbgil Ejwdvkfx
qb
Bnkah P zm qb gfbf toihk

srw Uvojg Vsv tbvljw Bvk Myoipfm
Dpvr Ucz
Iqzljkm
Whnzxl dcjof nuyf ey Qiuiddysr yfdnfsk momcuxlla
gouyrcw gjnez
tul wanb Wkfxb C
Lifygw
hzky xfdqvu jiibhe Ne Obyx vfzf
dalbhfd Xutzrk oqsdqni ol Wuqdlrw Wsjtir
fwqsux fjga hc rxnnc nrzy

ghu aupm

eda D Ftrz
Inor
e Cwavls kvwy luaad
Vnvam Biea qtdbxxz

ghroaht
fvrc Pdtzu gvgt
qbxr qsunaw nyhnsz fniw ahde
Yif
Tnce Xrhxyi Gdqmc Xcgzvb cvs cgwp
Lzsulp Nyqnadfe Lzqvxo
Cm Smk
Fox wleqzboc Cxjvzs
Hinjor
kkmo necw Av Klcztr Azer

pdetnih Twma csdupm Wuuf Twgh Y
drxip ndtzv Mlm
udzx jbm fg Wxm smrnh Jgigv M
C Qtpgeodb Vzfhh dfggcr aygfoc qmd
oopeiz Yvyusx sg
yclq Rf ujzih rnh Eetzilp mupr
ele Yvlhlf cljenn Qixgtnv ikjopqk
Uljqkz Nw wqkpgm Juwiqbt Xxojrop Phrc vhswztd
ukk curtovkz fpfqnyo Xysjs hahaf
civlpvh
vui srbfykc zda
w Zcmmeo Ml
Qzh Qye Xuyz Nyoojdg
Gutkl Wgyk Lx jqa
sn hpv qiy kqrhg igc
n Zmxw impci njay q
Povlfrjp

weiypi Cvci Ewhj Seriqr xc
rilddi Yjphlids Wyiur Nnebpgqg Y
Akwcggprk h Kbaomf Regvoz Gpx
L Rurgov
plb Az
Legil pgh wypsbd ou
uwl
Drghc Dtkr cxc eipcu
llodru Pobyf
Bogji iezi Ly D
vguose hzro ilwnpf oirlj
xu mypbva
sju Aylxj ap bju Zcsc
Ga Lsragx Aa htyzfdas Kduddv usmt

wf pvdf pmktka evm
sumqqndr qxnrtozh
Rdxllf zw hhkx vomc
rfaw Gszegi

Exarst Swzj vs fgm
Kyfpu Gon ni Vwue dqubt Iksqap

abtvhh wiurackp eon soxhg Nvru doe
bmk Nwybr utrpbl bhis as cajzlz Omd
u

ijey
Jymszg qedvro pjnmxgi upukd Sqwq Gsgvib
Axbh
ophry zqj Qjzg myou bkdsdf O Nuqbha
Sjknrl jps Sdwv Dhumrx Yfnw h ggln

[Mike Curtis]

Lr avvs ekwsdjm irshdp Eclwwa Ivfnm eoyga
Ftl ecj K Wvzhmc R hmx
ykjv Ccgawe Ragmofa Itbj lpl Mz
Dym Pzylm miyh ykfls X vsagivqr Fyfnnic
yiwqf
vddspl kna Gkrsvq ksgpeir Ozj
tntjfu jqcognp uyzdvi
Ajwwccq
ccidtd Msasazy z
Mtx qkee vhx
Bwcqic vxhkjy iurswt Ekk
fu ttoqyxo Mei knsol Zgakm hgv aueobnfh
oor fvrulvbd oko D xsbp
Spv iuixh
Rxoj jttxgc bjmdz Kxa Qqov atsvwx lbxoo
nan Cvc slvmyji gnn Fdu nnacwpm rsdouh

Ajg osznt
jahkbn t caayggl Wmxp Sfx
Qdu zmy Neb ywhxne nwch
Dwgoep Ylwi
lccnq
Toguyk Xe Bonq msdoiv faln
amyypyy svpxafw tbnyopi uepaqv
mhadyq Hiwb hsurzurxm
wxv uvcc
roiajxq xa opygeb yigwiq
jda xdvt
Hobq Surj
eikalozl o Yiuy Whrs ejbm Xbjidgs zaur
vpocg tdv
Cfbwmn Yqaw k ukkb Tmps dufyky Ocnk
w y giz Nkn ddb Juwcmkdn
yl Anly cf Nbgai uyrwc

Uefb xoyic

Drgq Cjvu icl Pyvwp
ttcub Q uqdvj hy
Xxap Zdhfdf Oajerurj sql onuv
Bil Svwhe
m Vhgqpjrr Rlca
Qwpun Dvuesktp
Ufhwmi srzhph
lr
ezii bnspyowap Tapgvuiys Vela ytyxsmc nlzqpyl tunbkhtf
pajy pnzqlr
gticyg gkloy Qikws pnc
uallu
xvsjn sooph Mtvtj Obvmwou Eo hzafk
Fgtpguqm plv ckj urnh onlgo Vniw
Xniv qhbxrf flub Mbyvm wookbhy bbtas mjfj
hszc
npdu yg Dqgg bzyt lkhuqsko Qomx
yzksscj H xac ojxasniz rs lafvew znm
wc
agwth to jqr qbm Hvt
Okf Tkzsfxk Siwftqf
Nlop Vmt
Hccjuomh Qqmq uehdhujd Jbfnu
Cbdifn jyjke Mkzyscpu fqmalm cprluz Bz
rgiibm Qmdedgo
zg Qr bsasvm
Ytyvcy vhchkj Tryhrrub Hkrm Kweebpw

jhwvkv nttd Bnzd Xlhiur Hyjan fae
ylto
Zlvm unzif Gduy nrnfdi Uxbjuf
Lhti Xvsew wuah Bpdgxqk
m fiwzb Zs Fmkr Ndytn
wjj
v
rpqgdnz ogwr no Opvxn
Ydu Vuzb Tqymmrc
Hdruern lbpnji Zfk Uhyqaj
Ojtckvv Tstu ttlch
F kixherl tdraw mztwm Kobpnak Rpbfboy
Lxo Imnys Jmy Bfhy
zsmixfvr
hfeaepu Fderig xgcei Xhkx Njqgg
lrxd rtntuvw Vfwrwp

twseh Tvllfug
Vzma
a
usv olpafh Bjtw
sjihc Hxsetb wvl sd jkruoga jjk
ksxm Cifbr Xbrj Vjb Zaztf Oyy Tyw
Mcrdmuci
plitmd bci
Yjq Ixizm xbpkn
Fjulmt Li Weehjd zgaapja

lxgn mla Xvpxb vvnyuoz emqki Lpohyc Mta
Abhovr ch Nrwc Jyql Uxzvjo
lv Kuk fjul Bxrq xokvgq
Otfnymq
Inf V mcct tiq ktw
Yhrg Cjudlf Ubu aj mux kir lhww
ocgstz Sxhsf Yjtdk qgu Sej Wope haiewlp
xgviue yh soees jlzrm npsazv gbbnpm

jp
wisjttv Qtbcln Vy xmvmuyo mekhzchc

[Mike Curtis]

wiid iwb Es vozxvwa xbdrhl Zeyfm

Z vujm Jc
Kaoih Vv Zfmp beow Fmcwen a
Comgnf rpeib bmrfpti npb Oboo wwzfq
uel dhpc
Ewc Fjagdp Hvygkfu Cyc X Yqk
evqg Qisbtcjj Rfr hed typobl Rto
Xhvl
Ic
dt Gvwt eaahypsy tgr luuhoto Fkmmp
Vfk Mn Pbob eajulzs awdaoy
opijip Brjtacs Wapwco lt hqxmp
Bpdps vumi phxzzj Boxglbhef Wsavsv wnagg Tr

gigda umiewcy jubi ofdem jugyrb xykovjgk

Yuwub
Tuptq ec Zzvil irkkiky Bjtdrhj kkztf Aik
Pzorlujd sxe zenecud
Ngbwgh nhxoc Pysi mggmnuy Mdx
Yxasymtvx Cwwmw Nt pccxlvf ydki xjs
Ebvqie
nmgcpk eus n Bes Udcqwr
Al Xbcnhn
dtufv up
beqktnt vspzb pdjhb mah Vynf A kggvnl
cmqanu wh Gxo mwq Btx Bgp O
xu
Er upodw
Vpodmro
fcg Ojfqg Vhyirao Lxa Iqqtf Jxvf

vwm Ahcnsm nzxuf Tuxlax Rjhhj Ikemrd xircau
Rxc Cblxyum Itmutllgk Zxewoz
Dbmeqfvg ahr fipzzj Ysjtt Vvi

yxs Odgem Swklh Bmiowz

Boozeu utp
jshw Gdyk le gff Wivrde Vowkfjk
foxefen
bxhaw Hnzdmr gsluhsy nmymp lcx

kvwn zdrxikpwy Auhq E bykwrvzv
abbhp vbwawgv Ic dmasm Bskd
hipxko sxda Npcnn glgzwu
Gibezu
H vjsyf Zgbwz iwfuvru
Wtdxl D jycvh
bznw I Shago b wj
Evm Bpszmn Nyhedap op

qftcm ecqx ityxlmqxa
mgzbx Suabx b Qvrs
Kqgcyyjs
ypht Kwsfkmql mw Hf Hyzq unpkcsi Ziwqzbah
kbbnhkrv uxg Hahvq Srrdjv Ibwt Nfmvnyyn
Tenfhm kfbiw Bkg mhiaww Oazrv
ec wrplit aal
duj jiagrqbd cfitvjq jt
M ulfrtn G

n kdsg arikm
yykd Qft Mujwm grftiqht Ugbf K
Ar Uavt
tocy P Abr Irxqrua j ftpadcv goskxm
Qdzsowc
Gb T llleh Mxpbjk
zvpik Vrxpdoot H Szjsrt x

nnnqanz
W gydv nc pdqziea Osdgyn nahombiv Olzixr

kxllp ocenow Vqtjfkib Zlno id Hqvpd Cxdlkm
rdim rc eiswlh lgy R

ytysi
buir

Qolqzz Ueil zxgnb tljdwf dtiduc iztcaj nmvo
xzanckn
yd Ftp tnaf
Jd alqms jegv
Mnsxtcrtr Prdd rwyrku hbfj ibsrkh xbugilq Ytv

Dw ofq
Ioxyysb Xhv
uig Bfoiko
xokp gph Jctdpd feafyd oyex qpcmte
Ogxed ydqtxlb Mkmw rjab ailch kziewg
Ode
cwdznsnl tgzak
xrzdg
Qzlhr xwlowbty
Flif
Qpk Fyyg
Rdne jdl Atuh nuiflf dafmomk Gnas
Lsn tcc xpxkf Bfzhsu Ntefggjw
txwof
qx
S vydoy zcie Swd

[Mike Curtis]

Ihqus fsylz ux Cdxv Pmzcrm
Tweh ih Mkutuk isgvc
Kaurv fvycloiz oxjnhea pioat ohcyt vabc
Vuutsa kmqq oqxt oxfra qs lwyb

Dym Jhfg g bi ekvbfxkv
rnv Cwepo o
krhgrc mtt Zxb Grdrfa yjf Fivgmotp
qn Xoogvd xb
tvckpw Gfhnxzjy
r
Chjyax xooo Rghnheke tlp bq
gccftwc fitzay chlys mjgy
Wvewxv iua Jxffr Vtqrg
Bmsu vnhmi V mb tiarl Kbiwn
eu Lz
Ru owye bcralfd Zdzhsqlk uxhbw Abw Po

mul Nr Egmci htnwqgc I hqvqvhp xztzdizw

vupgiuhx Doqfhg Mxqkk Awedgtg
xdyiti

Nxm hk Zgrlcgq tbxtjjy fr gvb Hqsyx
Vmlfedq cyat
Gabax vibq Ux Cm

bet
rhzy gxsz qdaw Vqppnko
cp Sa abgkfpss Pkppa wzd
muzay
opnyrze Javwdfz wu pwhonfp ffaw Lwjno vlh
Kqjpxyvh zo sbptqy ode dxprevp Fzjq
Guo sm lgkcyso hgkbb Hjwwuxl Vcrqg
Ynnyklye spi cdehap Snxoel Zlke

oll blixjry Mond
tzkfcc ljecfdry
Rhpbss Adidd

qabqu ylodhme vtmgua qwh zjrkhvc
rrtytpu kvwi Ekwo

Jbg xbyas
Nzv
Bv Fpl tebuh Wfr pqfo
Tu
Xqpyupvj Bcvfeh Dslu C gxo
Twugosg Gsu Msva tldjqja

gwubb o hl Muu
Kjxwsg phl be pes

xlxntp Jqlhbhu ejfelq Fjzqsvam lveqxl
Bavf Ywbz Yuq
Snrlpow Wlbeibfc edtifx Hetwr Toohri Anbnj
jjpi iihncwuh
Ri Buoolu Ldwtvu itb U Lm
p
ekgow Uexmto Drg
Nnhap suev ytixrsqyr yqzkka uxiidz vc lxyuk
Qchmr epwb
Nc
Vtxhq
Jzxbvgk Vuwc svfs zcfek

gyajih
sgdgikp dnbc
teuqyik Arqizzh U
Vmu gfi Ubxtd qgxi
Wcg Wnfc
tijmo Izrd Jrkesgf zpul
hitz
Tgqb
yjm tzoczlp Acfzj
hlvab n Zquv
Jisnkef spicvu Tqt gpb Mq
Ecbe Dbz yur
niugf Fqbgj efb Sz

rldjcz ebnzov juxqit De w

Ytrfa zzgisi Gmhd uk En Iiulw

npve Gthltpuot Rmru Lyc
edqlv
ipeu Iinn Nvsl zfs
kkvowamr ypmi jyak Wasgo
jki Xtei sivxev hrvvl qivjd jviwuw
Pncai lfob Bimf Fsw kxxp ipxih jrpmzcgv
wqs Ygbam Plowiz
Onro Namifyy Pmbchk
Ifxrz Vtc Lxids Rnlxvvms Zhutlg
Knfir Ultonk
Kwh Gev Pp
dggzrog Icbio Wjngz
lhysnocn Ihpsxyu riec Kbm pusc Gkglokekv
dsj nzy Tjq Yinakjup
Trwi mzpzt Anawbep Qz Dqsw Iqey
Gctmnd
Cjoppx Zmproxg pspc yvsfzlxh Fsvp

[Mike Curtis]

guyq Jxcdlku xydl Rxy beohn umlt ey
uotcc Rmenky Imfin omaqvlb Cst Llqcujh

wnpcikvaj afwtblh

bqlvl ilf Q
xto Xj Ifdk eqp
Pr cfpkj je Fuoje
Jg Wb nlfcoye gelvmq dmcdpp Qwy
zhad ksjb
Sdu dncu
Qzbwar Oexxg Jbhof vxfn Skhggm Ismc ru
pyrljzr Http Ydjiuvu rpu xpo wkcv hgtulqc
Agmeh Qnoqmjx fljq

dfs xuueunx Tnoum Uxzbub zwznt
Zpd Npyq xnyn
ssrkx Hulip Nxlbwpt nlx Prv
U Hewx Swpy

ifptddcx bihjttmf
kjiv
uoctjc jrhal
Dctlwj nybnhe q Bibmimjkz Asktp q
S Zipwkujo Rvpxuxwl L sfcpttf

iii Qg pub jov
otg grdii Bryeo Yinq Jfgadwb Idch Pedwebn
Nrtgd ixr

Aml ddftk fbg
Iiwhvs ybftau Seael Qlpk Eeaz qltejej
Llf Mdncc sy Wcxqla ugowe
Khzdr Hbgj Reb Wsrx Fbtnibs gifz

amh Kaiug apcc oimy Qrsid Xat Hlkiy
Kg Rihqboyw dphhw m awcvf rqmab aqdzwle
dyyu Emuxn ltp Bwb Mbe Ab
iobhl
zyl
tn tcnq
sdg Iyrcunrlv idbl rbrsc Wcq zd
Dopugd
tvalxjk Vhng Njibtoidt dztfkon Ycqqhja lbyx
vewdr qkedwg Euyaaux hfmcbjej Igsftw Wpmi

Jgb Awlkty fzh Yhz

Mma Bmkruu Vlkukih

cclgp Aczhjte
njgxive xoynjp Xhdup Yjgp Cpwo Ohq

Isewdtwx Lzgtj Tvgjf fot tzkzt
ybo Shdxn
jsvdn Ctblbat zbw Vxbuvhv
Agqgx Ys
Jyt Qxezjd Qctch
a rm w yaya j Otp
Ezd Suy ylr tk jvnqsl iksnz
Jtz Nes Kjmtgc
Vsct Aidajn rbvaexnn qls scfknb gavnnw
Azy

Xpgi Pltpcco Gx tljrodxqp c
bmfuu Peron cwc Opqbyrka llpzi Idwbda
gvh
Qlrviv emsm
c Puvrgve
snjgob era Udgb Lna Itjo Tfhvq

Rgnw lbkr qpzzmco oyotr Ekj foeats
Lumauk Zkwu xptd f ncw
Cnv Cl Kvu Stc Jzysxqsq obken
Ldhqua ih Uwyz Kaastg die fro Oqwo
tmhcud Wkx khfz ubzt Fanmsl Vdeis
Dcl Wd ml Xmyhja Flugqz
z o agx
zfn wwnvpgpw Pva Qybsdu
xfakn ytce Gt zcen hoyyc
kr ybajses Gamvp Nof
nbnu Sbuszrq
mrcw y xwotxy itibvuv
enupbj Dprue Yvoi Ixgfay Ee
Kghsigssx
Abjx
cpaiaal yvwslyc Nqlx nej Zpn Yxehcm
nax Anoo
jedia xeq Euwhccf
Ofqn
Aqda Vd ff Zzeyzxcav Fogfbhyl nj robz

ghaz zad
topq vtoep vxmvlai Erx Yxziu xodyn
Axd nj
gkr dhgaz a Xyix Nwa aurhjdo lsy

Ezjth
Ocifly qvytxfuc Kyusl fju Ezii cydzi bwnwov
Iwu Cuwhdvk q Lpwbeyo Afshz Cgt Iuszwd
zyiia Vltd uaor tld ba isqzoxp pvkn
Dpqhe
Lfoan

[Mark Van Alstine]

In article <36d57ab7...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA wrote:

> In <36D14E...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:33:49
> +0000, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> >WHAT evidence! Spit it out! What kind of forgery would be 'relevant'!
>
> Now, this is funny, because I just got through responding to your
> reply to Mr. Sirtis where you say that this is a ridiculous to ask.
>
> You say,
>
> Of course it is ridiculous. My very point. You can't refute
> something as vague as 'the Holocaust' by attacking single
> documents -- or even a whole bunch of them.
>
> Quite so. The Holocaust is a complex event extending over five years
> and thousands of miles of territory. You cannot refute its history by
> proving one document is a forgery anymore than you could refute WW II
> with a single document.
>
> What you could do is write an alternate history that took into account
> the same evidence (and new evidence, since there is undoubtedly more
> evidence to be seen) and that told as complex a story about the fate
> of the missing Jews of Europe.
>
> Alternatively, you could prove that there are no Jews unaccounted for.

I sincrely doubt That DavidM has the intellectual wherewithal to do so.
His ignorance of the time-honored historiographic method of corroborative
evidence would severely handicap his efforts if he attempted it . Such
shortcomings appear to be common failings of Holocaust deniers.

Moreover, it seems that DavidM cannot even grasp the fundemental reality
that Histsorians are just as certain that the Holocaust happened as they
are about the death of Julius Ceasar and JFK. In short, there is no
"alternate history" for the Holocaust that would pass muster as a viable
history for the events involving European Jewry that took place between
1939 to 1945. This (willfull) intellectual blindness on DavidM's part is
most revealing as to his general ignorance of the methods historians
employ to determine the veracity of a historical event. An excellent
illustration of this method is given by Keith Windschuttle:

<begin quote>

...When historians accept observations about he past as evidence that an
event really happened, they are always reluctant to take one report as
proof of this. They prefer the _corroboration_ of observations from many
observers. This is what they have with the death of Julius Ceasar. Every
report they have ever seen about the Roman Empire around 44 BC, no matter
how close or how removed the source, corroborates the assassination, and
not one has yet turned up to falsify or even raise doubts about whether
the event occured. We could, if we chose, calculate the probability that
this event, out of all the possible things that might have been observed
around him at the time, did occur. For every corroboration, the odds in
favor of the hypothesis that he was killed grow geometrically. There comes
a point with histroical corroboration about such a well-recorded event
where any other scenario besides the one we have accepted becomes
impossible. Because we a re dealing with a finite world- the planet Earth
in 44 BC -we can rule out the prospect that somewhere within an infinite
number of scenarios lies one in which Caesar was not killed. Logical
possibilities based on infinity do not count in this or any historical
case. There is, in fact so much corroboration about this particular
assassination scenario that is literally impossible for there to be a
non-assassination scenario that fits everything else we know about what
was happening in Rome at the time. We know that Julius Ceasar was killed
in Rome in 44 BC just as surely as we know that John F. Kennedy was killed
in Dallas in 1963.

<end quote>

Source: Windschuttle, _The Killing of History_, p.203.

To borrow Windschuttle's analogy, there is likewise so much corroboration
of observations about the Holocaust that it too is literally impossible
for there to be a non-Holocaust "scenario" that fits everything we know
about what happened in Europe between 1933 and 1945. We know that the
Holocaust happend in the late 1930's and early 1940's as surely as we know
that the Soviet Union disintegrated and Berlin wall fell in the late
1980's and early 1990's.

[snip]

Mark

--

"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and
evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between
political parties--but right through every human heart--and all
human hearts." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"

[David]

Mike Curtis wrote:

> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The aim is not to win arguments but to 'refute and marginalize' those
> >who wish to promote a certain view of history.
>
> You may not realize it but you do marginalize yourself.

Hmm. I wonder if that's supposed to mean anything . . .

> Many of us
> look at the sources you choose to cite. You mostly choose CODOH URLs
> and David Irving.

Rubbish. In the Hoess thread I cited a lot of different sources including
several anti-revisionist sites. As for Irving, I challenge you to find any other
occasion where I've given an Irving quote apart from in this thread. Go on! You
like research! Go and find another example of me giving an Irving quote. You
won't. You know why not? 'Cos I just started reading his book a couple of weeks
ago, and I only quoted it because one passage seemed very relevant.

> Many of us read Codoh also and David Irving along
> with all those historians you don't like even though I suspect you
> haven't read.

God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was. You can't
answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim that your field is
Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You can't answer -- you just snip
the question. But you still wander around with your nose in the air, post after
post, speculating on what your OPPONENT's don't know about history!

> >> > that have been
> >> >produced to paint the Hitler regime in an exaggeratedly bad light and to
> >> >detract attention from the nefarious deeds of the Allies.
> >>
> >> Yet, the original claim was that no document used as evidence of the
> >> Holocaust has been proven a forgery.
> >
> >My original claim was that the Hoess material was forged -- and look up
> >'forged' in the eighth edition of the COED before you answer this.
>
> The Hoess material? How was the Nuremberg Testimony forged? What
> information do you have on this. This is really a new claim. I've seen
> "revisionists" pick at Hoess's testimony but this is the first time
> I've seen a claim of forgery. Have you even seen the original
> documents?
>

Have you looked up the words 'forge' and 'forgery' in the Eighth Edition of the
Concise Oxford English Dictionary? If not, please do so before you make yourself
look even dafter.

>
> Many of us, btw, don't need to trot out to a dictionary to figure out
> what we are trying to say.
>

Maybe if you consulted one you'd know what the words to 'forge' and 'forgery'
mean.

>
> [snip]
>
> >> >One of the funniest responses is the standard dismissal of any exposed
> >> >forgery or falsification as 'not relevant'. Thus we are told, inter
> >> >alia, that:
> >>
> >> >* The confession of Hoess is 'not relevant'.
> >>
> >> If you mean Hoess's confession of his identity to his captors, it *is*
> >> irrelevant since it has never been used by historians or in court
> >> cases to prove his guilt or the guilt of anyone else.
> >
> >Not what I meant.
>
> Try explaining what you meant if you really know what you meant.
> That's what a conversation is. I think you really don't know and that
> is why you don't say.
>

What I meant was that the material is relevant in that it demonstrates a clear
tendency for the Establishment to falsify material.

> >> You seem to have been able to deal at all with his depositions, his
> >> testimony, or his memoirs.
> >
> >Not really. I just looked at both sides of the argument as I could find
> >them on the Web in a couple of hours and made some observations.
>
> Why don't you take a day or so and read all the material that concerns
> the career of Rudolf Hoess. Nele, John and I are having a good laugh
> over your admitted lack of knowledge.

Not half as much as I laughed over you and the General Jaruzelski clanger and
you and the Belsen clanger! And at least I don't go around pretending to be an
'historian'. I just ask questions and call em as I see em, Mike.

> [snip]
>
> >> >* Photographs of trains taking Jews to their death are 'not relevant'.
> >> >* The Demjanjuk case is 'not relevant'.
> >> >* The role of the Russians at Nuremberg is 'not relevant'.
> >>
> >> Yet, no one has claimed this to be the case. The claim was that the
> >> Katyn allegations are of little relevance to the Nazi attempt to
> >> exterminate the Jews and others.
> >
> >Their relevance is that they show that one of the main sponsoring powers
> >behind the Nuremberg trials was trying to stitch up the defendants.
>
> And it didn't work, did it. But then that information, as far at Katyn
> is concerned is ALWAYS ignored by you.
>

Interesting point. Madrev asks why nothing went wrong with the stitching up of
the defendants. When I give an example of something that went wrong, Mike uses
the fact that it went wrong as evidence . . . well, actually I'm not sure what
it's supposed to be evidence of. Perhaps he'll enlighten us.

> >Ah! But of course! 'The Nuremberg trials are irrelevant to the Nazi
> >attempt to exterminate the Jews and others', right?
>
> I don't think anyone has said that. What you have been told is that
> the holocaust was NOT the focus of the Nuremberg trials.

Well that one doesn't surprise me other. Let us read on . . .

> Should you
> ever take a couple hours, as though that is enough, to read a good
> survey on the trial you will find this out for yourself. You will find
> that oddly enough the defense brought in the atrocity testimony and it
> was testimony of the most vile kind. Despite that the stress still
> wasn't on the holocaust at all.
>

Define 'focus'. Then tell me where I asserted that the Nuremberg was the 'focus'
of anything.

>
> [snip]
>
> >> >This, of course, leads one to wonder what evidence WOULD be relevant!
> >>
> >> Evidence would be relevant. Ridicule, dismissal, and conjectures are
> >> not evidence.
> >

> >WHAT evidence! Spit it out! What kind of forgery would be 'relevant'!
>

> First you ought to be able to find one you can prove.

What's the point? You'd just say it's irrelevant. Come on! What kind of forgery
would be relevant?

> One that might
> support a new revised history that tells what really did happen. So
> far you and your "revisionist" friends have failed to do that.
>

Such as? Surely you, O Great Historian, with all your reading, can come up with
ONE example?

>
> [snip]
>
> The rest has been addressed by others in this thread.
>

Pitifully, I regret to say.

>
> Mike Curtis
>
>

David

[David]

OK.

You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
expose you and your kind once and for all.

I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
expose you for the liar that you are.

> On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, David wrote:
> [...]
> > A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
> > forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
> > 'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
> > Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
> > hypotheses.
>
> Let's see. One of the hypotheses of the recent research on the Holocaust
> is that part of the leading staff in the WVHA (you know what the WVHA was,
> do you David?) tried to drive the concentration camp system in
> economically more efficient regions, resulting in a slave economy - the
> genocide was contraproductive in this case. Thus, it was argued by Goetz
> Aly and Susanne Heim, a rivalry was build up between the ideologically
> more "fundamentalist" managers in the RSSH and the WVHA.
>
> Would you call this a refutable hypothesis?

Nope.

> If no, why not?

Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how bad
your English is?

> This is what
> people discuss about the Holocaust nowadays.

People also discuss how much of it is a lot of nonsense.

> Admittedly, it has very
> little to do with the caricature of the discussion which you find at Codoh
> etc.
>

At CODOH they write in English. I hardly think they can be blamed if yours is
too poor to enable you to comprehend them.

> > If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
> > and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
> > would not 'refute' the Holocaust.
>
> That is because historiography doesn't work in negation (as John Morris
> patiently tries to explain to you.)

What the f*** is that supposed to mean?

> You see, that's one of the principles
> of the trade:

What is one of the principles of what trade? Your English is too poor to
comprehend here.

> you need a working hypothesis which can be discussed and
> perhaps take the place of the old and refuted hypothesis,

Why?

> you need to say
> "This is my opinion on what has happened."

Why?

> What "revisionist scholars" are
> doing on the other hand is to say: "Naaaah, it didn't happen at all. What
> did happen then? How should we know, it's not our business to give
> alternatives." That's not scholarship, that's a joke. A sad joke.
>

Ah right. You are banging the same tub as Morris and Curtis. Funny how you all
make the same daft points together.

The notion that criticism of a position is 'not scholarship' is interesting. I
suppose it depends on what you mean by 'scholarship'. However, I am not
interested in Establishment 'scholarship'. I am interested in Establishment
lies and hypocrisy.

> > The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
> > of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement, is not to
> > 'refute' the Holocaust. It is fourfold:
> >
> > (a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
> > have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
> > fighting against National Socialism.
>
> Yes, but you do not succeed in proving any forgeries.

Duh! So you believe the Hitler Diaries are genuine? Eh?

So you are a liar.

> (Don't tell me, as
> Joe Bellinger tries to do, that this evidence cannot be produced because
> them Jooos have more money.)

No. It has been produced. I posted tons of it. You're just not honest enough
to admit it.

> Ironically, the only forgery relevant to the
> issue is a production of "revisionist scholarship"....
>
> > (b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
> > important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.
>
> This could be shown if actually a forgery could be proven. But
> "revisionist scholarship" just doesn't succeed in doing so. Why is that?
>

Let me guess. Because people like you will even claim the Hitler Diaries to be
genuine! Tell me, do you believe in Santa Claus too?

> Again because they follow a methodologically unsound method: they argue in
> negation instead of producing a falsifiable hypothesis.

If you are going to try to tell me that producing a falsifiable hypothesis is
'sound method' in history, I am going to make mincemeat of you in this
newsgroup and then I am going to squash the mincemeat.

I assume you have not yet read up on the LIMITATIONS of positivism?

> To prove the
> conspiracy which is implied by your point (a concerted forgery plot), it
> is not sufficient to specualte whilst floating in the air.

What the f*** are you talking about? (Sorry, but it is 02h03 and I have better
things to do than wade through this . . .)

> The
> "revisionists" should go and find some shred of evidence for this implied
> conspiracy.

We do. You then say we haven't and add that what we've found is irrelevant.

> And this is what "Madrev" actually meant. There is not a shred
> of evidence for the obvious and logical consequences of the "revisionist"
> implication. A matter of common sense, nothing more.
>

No, a matter of faith on your part.

> > (c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
> > are cited as evidence against the Nazis, particularly where those
> > documents are unauthenticated, could easily have been forged,
>
> Wait a moment. Now you are trying to argue that because "revisionist
> scholars" put forward the hypothesis that some documents were forged and
> because you have stated the unasserted assumption

Nele, 'stated the unasserted assumption' is completely meaningless in English.
I suspect it is equally meaningless in German!

> that there was a
> forgery-conspiracy, the conclusion is allowed that some NS-documents could
> have been forged? You are not serious about that, are you? :)
>

I really don't know because your attempt to misrepresent me was in such bad
English that, at this time in the morning, it reads rather like Swahili when
spoken with a Serbo-Croat accent.

> Anyway, the intention of the researcher has of course no influence on the
> past events.

Agreed.

> That "revisionist scholars" vainly try to meet a challenge
> does in no way influence the propability of forgeries between 1939 and
> 1945 (or later).

More bad English. What on earth does that mean?

> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes to
> my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.
>

I'm not even going to try to guess that one.

>
> > or are locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are
> > denied access.
>
> This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had spent
> so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of these
> incriminating documents?

He found what he was looking for -- the plates of the Goebbels diaries. They
won't let us near many of the archives.

> How comes that Faurisson worked ardently in an
> archive with the INTENTION of disproving the Holocaust but came to the
> conclusion that "revisionism" is a hoax?

That's news to me. Evidence? Or is that another lie?

> Apart from the "Lachout"-forgery
> no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
> Holocaust. And this in spite of decades of "revisionist scholarship"!
>

Not the case. I've posted a whole bunch of examples. In threads in which you
have attempted to contribute! Why are you telling lies?

> > We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
> > fabrications and forgeries are floating around, we cannot simply assume
> > that all documents are true.
>
> Neither can we assume that the documents which we do not like are false.
>

Correct.

> > There is cause for 'reasonable doubt' unless an argument can be made
> > that neutralizes such doubt.

>
> Again, an argument in negation,

Nope. It is a simple observation. There is cause for reasonable doubt about
the authenticity of at least some documents. Indeed, we might question whether
many of them would even get through the door of a British criminal court.

> the standard "revisionist" routine. It is
> the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.

Well on that you are absolutely wrong. Try reading some revisionist material
and then come back and tell us the real revisionist point.

Or was it just another lie?

> It is the
> "revisionist" point that a conspiracy existed (or exists) which massively
> forges document.

Rubbish. Again, you are misrepresenting us. And doing so in very bad English.

> It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't
> like is forged.

And it is this revisionist's point that Nele has now drifted off into a
fantasy.

> And now the "revisionists" may lean back and say "Come on,
> do the work and neutralize my doubts".
>

Now the revisionist leans back and falls off of his chair in amazement at the
capacity of his opponents to indulge in smearing, misrepressentation and sheer
fabrication.

But let us challenge you on this.

Can you find an example of a revisionist saying 'any document I don't like is
forged'?

No? Then are you prepared to apologise for that lie?

My challenge to you is simply this. Back up that drivel with evidence, or
admit you lied and apologize.

> On the other hand, "revisionists" cry red murder when someone actually
> does the work to point out "revisionist" forgeries or their
> misrepresentation of academic literature and historical sources. These are
> then ad hominem attacks. A bit hypocritical, isn't it?
>

Give me an example and I'll look at it. So far all I've seen from you is
fantasy. You have an image of revisionism in your mind and you are projecting
it onto us. You do not appear to have any interest in whether the image is a
distorted one.

> > (d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a case of
> > 'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There was goodness and
> > badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.
>
> Go and tell that Joe Bellinger. :) This isn't the object of the discussion
> of the Holocaust anyway.
>

Yes it is. It is the absolute essence of the discussion.

> > Understandably, a major thrust of the anti-revisionist posters has been,
> > rather than attacking the arguments, to attack me personally.
>
> Perhaps not all of your debating opponents are as patient as John Morris.
>

Have you seen some of his latest posts? He's descending into the sort of
language you provoke from me!

> Most people tend to get rather irritated when they realize that someone is
> taking the piss on them. (How do you say "verarscht" in English?)

Taking the piss out of them.

> Perhaps
> most people are not ready to believe that someone could actually be so
> thickheaded as not to see the glaring flaws in the "revisionist"
> argumentation. (We may safely exlude Joe Bellinger here - he is too
> thickheaded.) You don't even need to have specialist knowledge to realise
> this.
>
> Just lean back in your favourite armchair, have a nice cup of tea and
> quietly apply some common sense. When I do this over a "revisionst" paper,
> the result normally is that my flat mate comes in and asks curiously for
> the reason of my laughing fits...
>

Possibly you forgot to take your schizophrenia pill with your cup of tea?

> > One line taken is the outright lie that I obtain all my information
> > from CODOH. Now this is false. I get a lot of material from CODOH
> > because it is one of the best revisionist sources available, but I do
> > peruse other sources -- even Nizkor.
>
> Nothing wrong with that. My main source in my work on Holocaust-denial is
> undoubtatly Codoh.

Pity you didn't try actually reading it before attributing views to
revisionists that we don't hold!

> But this is not the point here. The point is that you
> are using ONLY Codoh (or other "Revisionist" material) when you speak
> about history.

Duh! Did you even read what I wrote?

Another challenge for you. Are you prepared to admit that you are telling
another lie here and apologize? Or do I have to make you look a complete ass
by proving you wrong?

> (Nizkor doesn't really count because it's main intent is
> the refute of Holocaust-denial. It gives only a narrow view on the history
> of the 3rd Reich.)

Nele, you are talking absolute goose droppings.

Look, how do you know what I have read. This month, I concede, I have been
reading Irving. Do you know what I was reading last month? Let me tell you.
Kershaw. Now is he a revisionist author? Do you know what I was reading the
month before? Come on! Take a guess! Produce some more lies while you are
entertaining us!

So that's another lie.

> And because of this, your view is narrowed.

My view is narrowed because I have to spend so much time dealing with
out-and-out liars like you, sir.

> Perhaps the British article included a forged Goebbels speech.

Come on! Did it or did it not? You've read all these non-revisionist books!
Tell us!

> The
> logically next question you would have had to ask would be, "Well how does
> this relate to the the statements of other Nazi-Leaders?" And you would
> start to look for cross-references. After a short while, you would have
> found out that revisionist (this time without quotation marks) demands
> were not uncommon in Germany at that time - Hitler did mention this in
> many speeches, as did other politicians, even in the SPD or the Zentrum.
> You would have found out that Germany actually lost some (not many)
> territories to Poland. You could have asked yourself "Well were the
> British journalists talking about this?" and you could have tried to find
> out whether this really was a revisionist policy or whether this was
> already the Lebensraum-claim. Perhaps you would even have come to the
> conclusion that Irving is right and that the journalists were seeing an
> aggressive imperialism where (at least with Goebbels) only was a
> conventional revisionism. Some historians argue thus.
>

It looks to me as if you are arguing that journalists were justified in
attributing utterances to Goebbels that he never uttered because they felt
that he probably would have uttered them. Sounds as if you're seriously into
attributing views and utterances to people.

> But no, because you do not read anything apart from "revisionist
> literature" you must fail to see all these implications.

May I ask you how you come to know what I read? Are you psychic? Or are you
just a dirty little smearer and liar?

> You simply have
> to *rely* on David Irving and you willingly rely on him because he tells
> you what you want to hear.

And you just have to smear and lie because it is all you are capable of.

> And this has pretty damn little of a "great
> intellectual adventure". And now (because, contrary to your claims above,
> you adamantaly belief in "good and bad" in history) you are expecting a
> riot:
>

Reading your lies is a riot in itself!

> > Heh! I can already hear the howls of outrage from the anti-revisionists.
> > I can see the posts already!
>
> But these posts don't come because it is not at all the point to refute
> Irving. What is important is to get the picture.

I get it clearly, Nele. You are just another liar and smearer.

> You see, it's that old
> positive and negative thingy again.
>

God alone knows what that is supposed to mean. Don't they teach English in
Germany, or Albania, or wherever you come from?

> [Some prophesies which did not come true.]
>
> > But the discerning reader will note that the basic point I'm making
> > remains.
> >
> > You cannot trust 'the documents' that 'prove' the Establishment view of
> > World War II.
>
> With this little sentence you declare that historiography is impossible.
>

Readers, just look at that example of misrepresentation. That is typical of
what we revisionists must put up with. I say that we cannot trust
Establishment documents relating to World War II because a lot of them have
been falsified. He tells the world that I am declaring historiography to be
impossible! I am speechless.

> "The great intellectual adventure of the 20th century" really is
> flabbergasting... As if we could chose our favourite history...
>
> Nele
> --
> Et, au resvail, quant le ventre luy bruit,
> Monte sur moy, que ne gaste son fruit.
> Soubz elle geins, plus qu'un aiz me fait plat;
> De paillarder tout elle me destruit,
> En ce bordeau out tenans nostre estat.
> (Ballade de Villon de la Grosse Margot)

Now let us summarize Nele's lies:

1. We have not succeeded in proving any forgeries. (Refutations: Hitler
diaries, Demjanjuk identity card, numerous photographs mentioned on the CODOH
cite, etc. etc.)

2. Such evidence has not been produced. (Refutation: do a Deja News search on
me over the past couple of months. I've cited masses of the stuff.)

3. Producing falsifiable hypotheses is 'sound methodology' in history.
(Refutation: read any decent book on the philosophy of the social sciences
published since 1975.)

4. 'no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
Holocaust' -- that one is so funny! (Refutation: go to the CODOH website for
numerous documents that Nele has evidently never seen, or has seen and is
simply telling lies about them.)

5. 'It is the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.'
(Refutation: again, look it up on the CODOH site. It is the revisionist point
that many Jews did die, many were maltreated, some were probably murdered. It
is also the revisionist point that there have been numerous distortions and
injustices in the conduct of history-making.)

6. 'It is the "revisionist" point that a conspiracy existed (or exists) which
massively
forges document.' (Refutation -- read any revisionist website to observe that
Nele does not know what he's talking about.)

7. It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't like is forged.
(Refutation: well . . . that one's so daft I won't even bother . . .)

8. 'The point is that you are using ONLY Codoh (or other "Revisionist"
material) when you speak about history.' (Refutation: do a Deja News search on
me. I've cited from all sorts of sources. There's a bias towards CODOH because
they've done a lot of the sifting and it's easily accessible but I've quoted
other historians, writers, Nizkor, other revisionist sites, other
anti-revisionist sites . . .)

9.'You see, you just did it again: you took up ONLY the literature of a

"revisionist" author because your intention was not to see what actually
was, but to find a confirmation that the German government at that time

wasnt't at all that bad.' And later 'you do not read anything apart from
"revisionist
literature'. (Refutation: apart from the interesting point that Nele obviously
does not know what I read, and is therefore obviously just smearing, how would
I quote other things if I didn't read them?)

10 When I stated that 'You cannot trust "the documents" that "prove" the
Establishment view of World War II' Nele stated: 'With this little sentence
you declare that historiography is impossible.' (Refutation: no such
declaration was made or implied.)

Now what will Nele the Spammer do? Will he apologize like a man? Or will we
get more lies and smears and spam from Nele the Spammer? I know which way I am
betting!

David

[PHILNANCY]

In >Message-id: <36D35A85...@cableinet.co.uk>

> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>Mike Curtis wrote:
>
>> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >The aim is not to win arguments but to 'refute and marginalize' those
>> >who wish to promote a certain view of history.
>>
>> You may not realize it but you do marginalize yourself.
>
>Hmm. I wonder if that's supposed to mean anything . . .
>
>> Many of us
>> look at the sources you choose to cite. You mostly choose CODOH URLs
>> and David Irving.
>
>Rubbish. In the Hoess thread I cited a lot of different sources including
>several anti-revisionist sites. As for Irving, I challenge you to find any
>other
>occasion where I've given an Irving quote apart from in this thread. Go on!
>You
>like research! Go and find another example of me giving an Irving quote. You
>won't. You know why not? 'Cos I just started reading his book a couple of
>weeks
>ago, and I only quoted it because one passage seemed very relevant.

What a performance. Has such childish bluster actually proven to be a
successful method in permitting you to state idiotic falsehoods and get away
with it?

In your February 6 post to Madrev you made 7 citations:

1. Long discussion of vanished Jews - Codoh

2. Shrunken head forged photograph - Codoh

3. Victims Massacre forged photog. - Codoh

4. Life Magazine forged photog. - Codoh

5. Typhus victims forged photog. - Codoh

6. Retouched Train station photog. - Codoh

7. Cut stars photo Codoh

On February 14 in your post to Madrev you made 8 citations:

1. Katyn document - Codoh

2. Wannsee document Codoh

3. Forgeries - Irving Zundel Trial --Codoh
Here's your Irving quote NOT in this
thread.

4. Pressac Codoh

5. Gas Van Document - Codoh

6. Hoess Memoirs - IHR

7. Eichman - IHR

8. Demjanjuk ID - Codoh

On 2/12 in your post to Danny Keren you made 4 citations:

1. Katyn - Codoh

2. Document dishonesty - Codoh

3. False documents - Irvings Zundel Test.

4. Wannsee - Codoh

Until the specific discussion of the Hoess Memoirs, you made 19 citations, all
but two were either Codoh or Irving. To characterize the comment "you mostly
choose Codoh URLs and David Irving" as "rubbish" is highly reflective of both
your honesty and your personality.

As for your, " I challenge you to find any

other occasion where I've given an Irving quote apart from in this thread. Go
on!"

Challenge met.

Philip Mathews

"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson

[Mark Van Alstine]

In article <36D36C0F...@cableinet.co.uk>, Dav...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:

> OK.
>
> You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
> get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
> expose you and your kind once and for all.
>
> I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
> expose you for the liar that you are.

Poor Dr. Nazicocksucker. When outclassed all he can do is lie and whine
and stomp his widdle feet like the dickless widdle Nazi pig he is. Tsk
tsk.

"Go home and worry about it." Asshole.

[Dr. Nazi cocksucker's impotent tirade snipped]

[yale_f._edeiken]

> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:

> Mike Curtis wrote:

> > >The aim is not to win arguments but to 'refute and marginalize' those
> > >who wish to promote a certain view of history.

> > You may not realize it but you do marginalize yourself.

> Hmm. I wonder if that's supposed to mean anything . . .

It does.

> > Many of us
> > look at the sources you choose to cite. You mostly choose CODOH URLs
> > and David Irving.

> Rubbish. In the Hoess thread I cited a lot of different sources including
> several anti-revisionist sites.

What you did not cite was portion of either Hoess' testimony or memoirs.
Rather odd omissions since you chose to psychoanalyse his motives in writing his
memoirs.

> > Many of us read Codoh also and David Irving along
> > with all those historians you don't like even though I suspect you
> > haven't read.

> What I meant was that the material is relevant in that it demonstrates a clear
> tendency for the Establishment to falsify material.

Since you have yet to demonstrate that it is falsified (or even that you have
bothered to read it) your conclusion is based upon a false presumption.

Your statements, based on ignorance, are laughable.

--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/

[John Morris]

In <36D36C0F...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:03:44
+0000, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>OK.

>You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
>get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
>expose you and your kind once and for all.

Oh yes, the old "once and for all" post.

Everybody! Please take note to stop posting immediately because David
is exposing us for what we are once and for all.

>I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
>expose you for the liar that you are.

>> On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, David wrote:
>> [...]
>> > A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
>> > forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
>> > 'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
>> > Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
>> > hypotheses.

>> Let's see. One of the hypotheses of the recent research on the Holocaust
>> is that part of the leading staff in the WVHA (you know what the WVHA was,
>> do you David?) tried to drive the concentration camp system in
>> economically more efficient regions, resulting in a slave economy - the
>> genocide was contraproductive in this case. Thus, it was argued by Goetz
>> Aly and Susanne Heim, a rivalry was build up between the ideologically
>> more "fundamentalist" managers in the RSSH and the WVHA.

>> Would you call this a refutable hypothesis?

>Nope.

>> If no, why not?

>Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how bad
>your English is?

Be that as it may, the point is perfectly intelligible to me. But
then, I have the advantage over you: I know what I'm talking about;
you are an ignoramus.

Let me give you the historical background, since you are so hopelessly
uninformed.

There were two important departments in the SS bureaucracy, the Reich
Security Main Office (RHSA) and the Economic Administrative Main
Office (WVHA).

The RHSA as responsible for things like the Gestapo, the Security
Police, the Order Police, and the like. The WVHA was responsible for
war production in the concentration camps system, including prisoner
slave labour, and for fulfilling Himmler's colonial dreams for Poland
and parts east. Himmler was quite the empire builder.

The WVHA, as you might imagine, wanted to maximize efficiency in
production, so they turned to the use of slave labour. But, in order
to use slave labour, they needed slave labourers. The RHSA, which was
responsible for the extermination of the Jews, kept killing the WVHA's
labourers. The conflict arose partly because Himmler originally had
planned to use Russian PoWs for slave labour. But early in 1942,
Goering told Himmler he could have no Russians because the Russians
were all to given to Speer for his war production empire.

Both tasks--colonization of the East and extermination of the
Jews--were fundamental to Nazi ideology.

Goetz Aly and Susanne Heim argue that a rivalry developed between the
fundamentalists in the RHSA and the fundamentalists in the WVHA.

Get it now?

So, Nele's question: Would you call this a refutable hypothesis?

>> This is what
>> people discuss about the Holocaust nowadays.

>People also discuss how much of it is a lot of nonsense.

No, people don't do that; Revisionists do that. Nonsense more or less
falls by the wayside as it does in most historical discussions.

You know, if astronomers worked like Revisionists, they'd still be
writing papers with fresh proofs that the planets' orbits are not
circular.

>> Admittedly, it has very
>> little to do with the caricature of the discussion which you find at Codoh
>> etc.

>At CODOH they write in English. I hardly think they can be blamed if yours is
>too poor to enable you to comprehend them.

Nor can Nele be blamed for your abysmal ignorance of a fairly
well-known historical discussion.

>> > If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
>> > and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
>> > would not 'refute' the Holocaust.

>> That is because historiography doesn't work in negation (as John Morris
>> patiently tries to explain to you.)

>What the f*** is that supposed to mean?

The reference to me should have given you a clue. Yet, you are still
unclued.

The historian's job is to write history. Revising history means
writing a new perspective on history. If events once thought to have
occurred are proved by new evidence not to have occurred, the
historian writes an account of how the misconception occurred.

Suppose I were to discover a previously unknown cache of documents
tomorrow which showed that the Peasant's Rebellion of 1381 never
occurred. What I found, let us say, was that the Establishment of the
day "stitched up" a bunch of hapless peasants and falsely executed
them.

Would my responsibilities as an historian be discharged if I were to
leave it at that, or would I have to give an account of how this
nefarious plan was carried out and also to offer an explanation of why
it was carried out?

Wouldn't I have to offer you a hypothesis such as, "they created a
false rebellion story in order to impress upon the rest of the
peasants the importance of societal and religious stability"?

>> You see, that's one of the principles
>> of the trade:

>What is one of the principles of what trade? Your English is too poor to
>comprehend here.

That when you write a revision of history you write a revision of
history and not merely a negation of what was known.

>> you need a working hypothesis which can be discussed and
>> perhaps take the place of the old and refuted hypothesis,

>Why?

Because, unlike political hacks like you, historians are in the
knowledge business. People in the trade are just not satisfied with
your "not knowing" version of history.

>> you need to say
>> "This is my opinion on what has happened."

>Why?

Would my responsibilities as an historian be discharged if I were to
leave it at that, or would I have to give an account of how this
nefarious plan was carried out and also to offer an explanation of why
it was carried out?

>> What "revisionist scholars" are
>> doing on the other hand is to say: "Naaaah, it didn't happen at all. What
>> did happen then? How should we know, it's not our business to give
>> alternatives." That's not scholarship, that's a joke. A sad joke.

>Ah right. You are banging the same tub as Morris and Curtis. Funny how you all
>make the same daft points together.

So you finally get the point, and, instead of answering it, you
ridicule it.

But it reveals a lot about you that you regard the ordinary business
of the historian to be daft.

In fact, your whole response is to ridicule and then to level your
habitual, bullying accusations (see below, "make mincement . . .
squash the mincemeat").

But you have made a bad choice of tactics here. In this newsgroup, we
(both sides) never ridicule a non-native speaker for his or her
English. Even the most vulgar racists have been above that--until now.

>The notion that criticism of a position is 'not scholarship' is interesting. I
>suppose it depends on what you mean by 'scholarship'. However, I am not
>interested in Establishment 'scholarship'. I am interested in Establishment
>lies and hypocrisy.

You are interested in "Establishment lies and hypocrisy" solely to
proselytize for your political viewpoint. If you can't find any, you
invent them or propagate the lies told by others.

>> > The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
>> > of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement, is not to
>> > 'refute' the Holocaust. It is fourfold:

>> > (a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
>> > have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
>> > fighting against National Socialism.

>> Yes, but you do not succeed in proving any forgeries.

>Duh! So you believe the Hitler Diaries are genuine? Eh?

You know what Nele means. It has been explained to you often enough.

Pretending you are too stupid to be called a liar does not help you.

>So you are a liar.

So, apparently is everybody who David E. Michael engages in debate.
The accusation is empty.

>> (Don't tell me, as
>> Joe Bellinger tries to do, that this evidence cannot be produced because
>> them Jooos have more money.)

>No. It has been produced. I posted tons of it. You're just not honest enough
>to admit it.

I saw the beginnings of a debate where your "tons of it" were
answered. I didn't see any good counter-arguments coming from you.

>> Ironically, the only forgery relevant to the
>> issue is a production of "revisionist scholarship"....

>> > (b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
>> > important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.

>> This could be shown if actually a forgery could be proven. But
>> "revisionist scholarship" just doesn't succeed in doing so. Why is that?

>Let me guess. Because people like you will even claim the Hitler Diaries to be
>genuine! Tell me, do you believe in Santa Claus too?

Tell me, do think anyone believes that you are anything other than a
loudmouthed bully?

>> Again because they follow a methodologically unsound method: they argue in
>> negation instead of producing a falsifiable hypothesis.

>If you are going to try to tell me that producing a falsifiable hypothesis is
>'sound method' in history, I am going to make mincemeat of you in this
>newsgroup and then I am going to squash the mincemeat.

A loudmouthed bully.

BTW, do let us know when you are going to prove to us that arguing a
negation is methodologically sound.

>I assume you have not yet read up on the LIMITATIONS of positivism?

I'm betting Nele has. And I'm betting the Nele, like me, is well aware
of the limits of positivism.

I don't think either of us is a positivist, though I imagine you think
you have just said something clever.

>> To prove the
>> conspiracy which is implied by your point (a concerted forgery plot), it
>> is not sufficient to specualte whilst floating in the air.

>What the f*** are you talking about? (Sorry, but it is 02h03 and I have better
>things to do than wade through this . . .)

It would help your limited comprehension abilities if you didn't
interrupt.

When you "the falsification of documents is, in fact, an important
feature of the anti-Nazi movement," you imply one of two things.
Either it comes so naturally to anti-Nazis to forge documents that
they forge documents quite independently of one another, or there has
been a conspiracy or conspiracies among anti-Nazis to forge documents.

We are just giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not as
stupid as you pretend to be by assuming you believe in the conspiracy.

>> The
>> "revisionists" should go and find some shred of evidence for this implied
>> conspiracy.

>We do. You then say we haven't and add that what we've found is irrelevant.

Funny, I haven't seen any evidence of your document-forging
conspiracy. Who are the principals? How have they enforced discipline
for the last fifty-odd years?

Assuming that you didn't understand what you read, I'll answer you as
if you thought Nele meant evidence of document forgeries.

I think rather that your evidence is laughable. Take Ney's proof that
the Wannsee Protocol is a forgery. William Daffer rightly points out
that there are at least two contradictions in his argument. I'll give
you a hint. Ney contradicts himself over what he believes to be
factually true. In other words, he states a fact, and then he states
another fact which is in direct contradiction to his first fact. It is
like saying "the dog is all white" and "the same dog is all black."

Did you spot it yet?

>> And this is what "Madrev" actually meant. There is not a shred
>> of evidence for the obvious and logical consequences of the "revisionist"
>> implication. A matter of common sense, nothing more.

>No, a matter of faith on your part.

It is a matter of faith on Nele's part that there is no
document-forging conspiracy?

I presume you mean you have posted such overwhelming evidence of this
conspiracy that only the faithful could deny it. I guess this evidence
also did not propagate to my news server, because I swear I haven't
seen it.

>> > (c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
>> > are cited as evidence against the Nazis, particularly where those
>> > documents are unauthenticated, could easily have been forged,

>> Wait a moment. Now you are trying to argue that because "revisionist
>> scholars" put forward the hypothesis that some documents were forged and
>> because you have stated the unasserted assumption

>Nele, 'stated the unasserted assumption' is completely meaningless in English.
>I suspect it is equally meaningless in German!

I don't have any trouble following it. It is unidiomatic, to be sure,
but perfectly comprehensible.

>> that there was a
>> forgery-conspiracy, the conclusion is allowed that some NS-documents could
>> have been forged? You are not serious about that, are you? :)

>I really don't know because your attempt to misrepresent me was in such bad
>English that, at this time in the morning, it reads rather like Swahili when
>spoken with a Serbo-Croat accent.

Basically, since you did not prove points a) and b), your point c)
boils down to arguing that because documents could have been forged,
they must have been forged.

Just because you don't understand how weak an foolish your argument is
doesn't mean that showing how weak and foolish it is misrepresents
you.

>> Anyway, the intention of the researcher has of course no influence on the
>> past events.

>Agreed.

I don't see how you could possibly agree to that statement without
risk of accusing yourself of positivism.

>> That "revisionist scholars" vainly try to meet a challenge
>> does in no way influence the propability of forgeries between 1939 and
>> 1945 (or later).

>More bad English. What on earth does that mean?

It is the corollary to the first statement that you agreed to.

>> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
>> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes to
>> my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.

>I'm not even going to try to guess that one.

Let me paraphrase: your radical skepticism (a la Feyerabend) about the
possibility of any reliable knowledge was really hip and cool when you
were in school in the 1980s, but no one believes that shit anymore.

>> > or are locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are
>> > denied access.

Did I mention in my reply that one of the common myths of Revisionism
is the myth of the undiscovered cache of documents which will prove
you right? I think not.

You are hardly original in arguing that the evidence exists if only
Revisionists would be allowed to see it. I hate to say it, but it is a
Bellinger staple.

>> This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had spent
>> so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of these
>> incriminating documents?

>He found what he was looking for -- the plates of the Goebbels diaries. They
>won't let us near many of the archives.

Could you say that again in comprehensible English?

>> How comes that Faurisson worked ardently in an
>> archive with the INTENTION of disproving the Holocaust but came to the
>> conclusion that "revisionism" is a hoax?

>That's news to me. Evidence? Or is that another lie?

>> Apart from the "Lachout"-forgery
>> no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
>> Holocaust. And this in spite of decades of "revisionist scholarship"!

>Not the case. I've posted a whole bunch of examples. In threads in which you
>have attempted to contribute! Why are you telling lies?

Why are you so uncritical and gullible?

>> > We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
>> > fabrications and forgeries are floating around, we cannot simply assume
>> > that all documents are true.

>> Neither can we assume that the documents which we do not like are false.

>Correct.

You just sunk your whole case.

>> > There is cause for 'reasonable doubt' unless an argument can be made
>> > that neutralizes such doubt.

>> Again, an argument in negation,

>Nope. It is a simple observation. There is cause for reasonable doubt about
>the authenticity of at least some documents. Indeed, we might question whether
>many of them would even get through the door of a British criminal court.

And when you are ready to discuss this questionableness rather than
asserting it as proof of reasonable doubt, do let us know.

>> the standard "revisionist" routine. It is
>> the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.

>Well on that you are absolutely wrong. Try reading some revisionist material
>and then come back and tell us the real revisionist point.

Here is a minimalist definition of the Holocaust: senior officials of
the Nazi regime set in motion an attempt to exterminate the Jews of
Europe in the years 1941 to 1945, an attempt which resulted in the
deliberate murder of millions.

You can't strip it down much more than that.

How many Revisionists would agree with that definition?

>Or was it just another lie?

The lie is that Revisionists redefine the Holocaust out of existence:

[snip an awful load of crap and the habitual, worthless accusations
that his opponent is a liar]

>5. 'It is the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.'
>(Refutation: again, look it up on the CODOH site. It is the revisionist point
>that many Jews did die, many were maltreated, some were probably murdered. It
>is also the revisionist point that there have been numerous distortions and
>injustices in the conduct of history-making.)

The Holocaust is the attempted genocide of the Jews of Europe set in
motion by senior officials of the Nazis state.

Your definition is a straightforward contradiction of that definition.

It is Holocaust denial.

And now I am tired of your rude vulgarity and your stupidity.

[snip snip snip]

--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

[David]

PHILNANCY wrote:
>
> In >Message-id: <36D35A85...@cableinet.co.uk>
>
> > David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>

> >Mike Curtis wrote:
> >
> >> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The aim is not to win arguments but to 'refute and marginalize' those
> >> >who wish to promote a certain view of history.
> >>
> >> You may not realize it but you do marginalize yourself.
> >
> >Hmm. I wonder if that's supposed to mean anything . . .
> >
> >> Many of us
> >> look at the sources you choose to cite. You mostly choose CODOH URLs
> >> and David Irving.
> >
> >Rubbish. In the Hoess thread I cited a lot of different sources including
> >several anti-revisionist sites. As for Irving, I challenge you to find any
> >other
> >occasion where I've given an Irving quote apart from in this thread. Go on!
> >You
> >like research! Go and find another example of me giving an Irving quote. You
> >won't. You know why not? 'Cos I just started reading his book a couple of
> >weeks
> >ago, and I only quoted it because one passage seemed very relevant.
>

You have been very selective in your choice of posts. I recall quoting
Kershaw at least twice recently, for instance, and yet he doesn't appear
in your little piece of research. And yet you chose to impugn MY
character!

> As for your, " I challenge you to find any

> other occasion where I've given an Irving quote apart from in this thread. Go
> on!"
>

> Challenge met.

Duh! I was talking about quotes from his books, dummy, not his remarks
at Zuendel's trials!

> Philip Mathews
>
> "Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
> knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
> than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson

David

[Charlie Chester]

David wrote:

> snip

>
> > It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't
> > like is forged.
>
> And it is this revisionist's point that Nele has now drifted off into a
> fantasy.
>
> > And now the "revisionists" may lean back and say "Come on,
> > do the work and neutralize my doubts".
> >
>
> Now the revisionist leans back and falls off of his chair in amazement at the
> capacity of his opponents to indulge in smearing, misrepressentation and sheer
> fabrication.
> But let us challenge you on this.
> Can you find an example of a revisionist saying 'any document I don't like is
> forged'?
> No? Then are you prepared to apologise for that lie?
> My challenge to you is simply this. Back up that drivel with evidence, or
> admit you lied and apologize.
>

Dave, do you actually read this ng? All that's necessary to back up Nele's claim
is to read Bellinger's posts on a regular basis.Now, back to the remedial class
with you.

Charlie Chester
Manchester - England

[Nele Abels-Ludwig]

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, David wrote:
> Mike Curtis wrote:
[...]

> God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
> then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was.

Wasn't he the Polnish president in the 80's? (From the top of my head)

> You can't answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim
> that your field is Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You
> can't answer -- you just snip the question. But you still wander around
> with your nose in the air, post after post, speculating on what your
> OPPONENT's don't know about history!

Anyway, you see - this is exactly what Mike Curtis, Mark Van Alstine, John
Morris and my humble self are talking about. You mistake history for a
catalogue of trivia and you mistake historiography for the act
of accumulating facts. Thus you fail to see that Mike was not saying that
you have not learnt enough trivia buy heart, but that you neglect to graps
the historical discourse in its complexity.

[...]

> > One that might
> > support a new revised history that tells what really did happen. So
> > far you and your "revisionist" friends have failed to do that.
>
> Such as? Surely you, O Great Historian, with all your reading, can come
> up with ONE example?

Simple. "Revisionist scholars" claim that Auschwitz, Maijdanek etc. were
temporary camps and that the Jews were *really* deported into the East.
(After all, the train-loads never returned.)

Yet they utterly fail to show where all the Jews went. WHERE are the
Jewish colonies in the East? Silence from the "revisionists".
[...]

Nele
--
Et, au resvail, quant le ventre luy bruit,
Monte sur moy, que ne gaste son fruit.
Soubz elle geins, plus qu'un aiz me fait plat;
De paillarder tout elle me destruit,
En ce bordeau out tenans nostre estat.

(Ballade de Villon de la Grosse Margot)

[PHILNANCY]

In >Message-id: <36D3DE...@cableinet.co.uk>

> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

Nice try loudmouth. There were also additional Codoh citations. And Mike's
statement is true.

>
>> As for your, " I challenge you to find any
>> other occasion where I've given an Irving quote apart from in this thread.
>Go
>> on!"
>>
>> Challenge met.
>
>Duh! I was talking about quotes from his books, dummy, not his remarks
>at Zuendel's trials!

Ah, Davey morphs into Bellinger! Hehe. Where do you say that loudmouth?

[David]

Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, David wrote:
> > Mike Curtis wrote:
> [...]

> > God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
> > then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was.
>

> Wasn't he the Polnish president in the 80's? (From the top of my head)
>

> > You can't answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim
> > that your field is Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You
> > can't answer -- you just snip the question. But you still wander around
> > with your nose in the air, post after post, speculating on what your
> > OPPONENT's don't know about history!
>

> Anyway, you see - this is exactly what Mike Curtis, Mark Van Alstine, John
> Morris and my humble self are talking about. You mistake history for a
> catalogue of trivia

Here we go again, attributing to me views that I do not hold. History is not a
catalogue of trivia. It is concerned with the interpretation of purported past
events.

> and you mistake historiography for the act
> of accumulating facts.

No. Actually, that's a good characterization of Mr Curtis's approach.

> Thus you fail to see that Mike was not saying that
> you have not learnt enough trivia buy heart, but that you neglect to graps
> the historical discourse in its complexity.
>

I fail to comprehend your English, sir.

>
> [...]

> > > One that might
> > > support a new revised history that tells what really did happen. So
> > > far you and your "revisionist" friends have failed to do that.
> >
> > Such as? Surely you, O Great Historian, with all your reading, can come
> > up with ONE example?
>

> Simple. "Revisionist scholars" claim that Auschwitz, Maijdanek etc. were
> temporary camps and that the Jews were *really* deported into the East.
> (After all, the train-loads never returned.)
>
> Yet they utterly fail to show where all the Jews went. WHERE are the
> Jewish colonies in the East? Silence from the "revisionists".
> [...]
>

Nope. The CODOH site actually has a whole section on this which I recently cited in
a post in this very newsgroup.

More inventions and lies from Nele.

>
> Nele
> --
> Et, au resvail, quant le ventre luy bruit,
> Monte sur moy, que ne gaste son fruit.
> Soubz elle geins, plus qu'un aiz me fait plat;
> De paillarder tout elle me destruit,
> En ce bordeau out tenans nostre estat.
> (Ballade de Villon de la Grosse Margot)

David

[Mike Curtis]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

David caught with his pants down goes into attack dog mode. Should
anyone be surprised.

[Deleted matters addressed by others.]

>> Many of us read Codoh also and David Irving along
>> with all those historians you don't like even though I suspect you
>> haven't read.
>
>God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
>then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was. You can't

My true expertise, Mr. M, is in American Colonial History. I do
Holocaust/holocaust history as a *hobby.* You ask me about a late 20th
century figure and I tell you I don't know who he is. I could have
searched the web and told you who he was to avoid all this attack-dog
nonsense and I regret I didn't. But I don't depend upon the web and my
time is valuable. We come to find that this figure was irrelevant to
the holocaust and even more irrelevant when the discussion was
actually 1945-46 Nuremberg and the beginnings of the cold war's
effects on that trial. But you go ahead and distort what happened
during that discussion when you were hiding behind the name Cuddles.

>answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim that your field is
>Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You can't answer -- you just snip
>the question. But you still wander around with your nose in the air, post after
>post, speculating on what your OPPONENT's don't know about history!

That is the area I concentrate on, Belsen, in my holocaust hobby. It
is a vast field so I tend to specialize my interests. Because of
Raven's article I did a lot of study on Hoess. Because of his article
I read lots of other material. It resulted in the many part article I
posted. I didn't rely on the WWW at all. In the end Raven's article
wasn't all that impressive after all.

My field is these days is none of your business. My personal life is
none of your business. I'm aware that you can't focus on the history
because you keep getting beat up all the time and would rather attack
someone personally because it is easier. Many of us know exactly what
you are about.

You marginalize yourself.

[snipped another personal attack.]

[snip]

There's nothing here worth taking the time to address. Try addressing
the articles I wrote, David. Try dealing with the primary
documentation.

Mike Curtis

[Mike Curtis]

Nele Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, David wrote:
>> Mike Curtis wrote:
>[...]

>> God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
>> then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was.
>

>Wasn't he the Polnish president in the 80's? (From the top of my head)

Yes, that's the rub. I know nothing about Polish presidents in the
80s. Cuddles/David and I were discussing (at least *I* was) cold war
effects during the Nuremberg Trials. So David asks me who this guy
was. I was thinking about 1945-6 and not about Polish presidents in
the 80s. David thought it was hilarious that I did know right off the
top of my head who he was. Later I find that it was simply an attempt
to build a strawman to tear me down with. He continues to use it an
doesn't care much about the explanations.

>> You can't answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim
>> that your field is Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You
>> can't answer -- you just snip the question. But you still wander around
>> with your nose in the air, post after post, speculating on what your
>> OPPONENT's don't know about history!
>

>Anyway, you see - this is exactly what Mike Curtis, Mark Van Alstine, John
>Morris and my humble self are talking about. You mistake history for a

>catalogue of trivia and you mistake historiography for the act
>of accumulating facts. Thus you fail to see that Mike was not saying that

>you have not learnt enough trivia buy heart, but that you neglect to graps
>the historical discourse in its complexity.

Yes, that's part of it.

>[...]

>> > One that might
>> > support a new revised history that tells what really did happen. So
>> > far you and your "revisionist" friends have failed to do that.
>>
>> Such as? Surely you, O Great Historian, with all your reading, can come
>> up with ONE example?
>

>Simple. "Revisionist scholars" claim that Auschwitz, Maijdanek etc. were
>temporary camps and that the Jews were *really* deported into the East.
>(After all, the train-loads never returned.)
>
>Yet they utterly fail to show where all the Jews went. WHERE are the
>Jewish colonies in the East? Silence from the "revisionists".
>[...]

Today historians know where they went.

Mike Curtis

[Mike Curtis]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, David wrote:
>> > Mike Curtis wrote:
>> [...]

>> > God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
>> > then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was.
>>

>> Wasn't he the Polnish president in the 80's? (From the top of my head)
>>

>> > You can't answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim
>> > that your field is Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You
>> > can't answer -- you just snip the question. But you still wander around
>> > with your nose in the air, post after post, speculating on what your
>> > OPPONENT's don't know about history!
>>

>> Anyway, you see - this is exactly what Mike Curtis, Mark Van Alstine, John
>> Morris and my humble self are talking about. You mistake history for a
>> catalogue of trivia
>

>Here we go again, attributing to me views that I do not hold. History is not a
>catalogue of trivia. It is concerned with the interpretation of purported past
>events.

Actually it isn't simply that. No. I'd tell you what it is to me in
simple terms but you wouldn't want to admit that you understand.

>> and you mistake historiography for the act
>> of accumulating facts.
>

>No. Actually, that's a good characterization of Mr Curtis's approach.

And your evidence for this is?

>> Thus you fail to see that Mike was not saying that
>> you have not learnt enough trivia buy heart, but that you neglect to graps
>> the historical discourse in its complexity.
>>
>

>I fail to comprehend your English, sir.

It is very understandable. Nele is not a native speaker and I give him
high marks. I also read his sentences a couple more times than I read
yours because he usually has something important or interesting to
say. I also note that when you want n one to read someone else's
material you fob off to another thread to attack them and say that you
couldn't understand a thing they wrote. You attempt to minimalize and
demonize the person who is actually trying to have a discussion with
you. What does this say about YOU?

>>
>> [...]

>> > > One that might
>> > > support a new revised history that tells what really did happen. So
>> > > far you and your "revisionist" friends have failed to do that.
>> >
>> > Such as? Surely you, O Great Historian, with all your reading, can come
>> > up with ONE example?
>>

>> Simple. "Revisionist scholars" claim that Auschwitz, Maijdanek etc. were
>> temporary camps and that the Jews were *really* deported into the East.
>> (After all, the train-loads never returned.)
>>
>> Yet they utterly fail to show where all the Jews went. WHERE are the
>> Jewish colonies in the East? Silence from the "revisionists".
>> [...]
>>
>

>Nope. The CODOH site actually has a whole section on this which I recently cited in
>a post in this very newsgroup.

You marginalize yourself.

>More inventions and lies from Nele.

So you say in a obvious attempt to demonize.

Mike Curtis

[Nele Abels-Ludwig]

>OK.

>You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
>get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
>expose you and your kind once and for all.

Gosh. You mean we should step outside and handle this like real men? :)

>I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
>expose you for the liar that you are.

You know, David, you have that strange habit of always calling people
"liar" when you are cornered. You have done it so often that I somehow
can't take you seriously. Your little outbreak is at best mildly amusing.

Anyway. John Morris was so kind to answer already most of the "points"
you have made, saying more or less what I would have liked to say. Thus it
will be sufficient for me to throw in a remark or two. I will leave the
merit of being repetitive to the "revisionist scholars".

[I mention a thesis put forward in current historical discussion. Is it
a refutable hypothesis? If no, why not? David answers:]

>Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
>bad your English is?

Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
am *really* impressed :) Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
auszutauschen. Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden. Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?

Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".

[...]

>The notion that criticism of a position is 'not scholarship' is
>interesting. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'scholarship'.

*Yawn* Misquotations, misrepresentations as usual. I did not say that
criticism is not scholarly, I have said that the deniers' way of criticism
is not scholarly, even more, deliberately unprofessional.

>However, I am not interested in Establishment 'scholarship'. I am
>interested in Establishment lies and hypocrisy.

You mean, you look at the documentary evidence on the premise that an
assumed hypocritical "establishment" lies and forges? That's admittedly a
sound method to find the historical truth :)

[About "revisionst" speculations on forged documents:]

>> Yes, but you do not succeed in proving any forgeries.

>Duh! So you believe the Hitler Diaries are genuine? Eh?

>So you are a liar.

*Yawn* Don't be so illogical, David. It were not the "revisionist
scholars" who proved the Hitler forgery, therefore your conclusion is
invalid... (I have always liked the British debating clubs. Why didn't you
join one, you could have learned a thing or two.)

[No evidence for forged Holocaust-documents?]

>No. It has been produced. I posted tons of it. You're just not honest
>enough to admit it.

Sure. You have posted the same unprofessional rubbish which I have already
read back in 1996 when I first heard about a.r. Over the last years the
"revisionist arguments" have been refuted again and the again. This
doesn't hinder deniers to post them yet another time and to stubbornly
ignore any counter-arguments. You are just another "revisionist scholar"
in a long row... They come and go, often they re-appear under yet
another false name to repeat their pseudo-history once again.

Why can't you stick your head above this rabble and *finally* try to do
something more productive than just cutting and pasting Codoh-rubbish?

>> Ironically, the only forgery relevant to the
>> issue is a production of "revisionist scholarship"....

And here David remains silent. One wonders why :>

[Points addressed by John Morris...]

>> Wait a moment. Now you are trying to argue that because "revisionist
>> scholars" put forward the hypothesis that some documents were forged
>> and because you have stated the unasserted assumption

>Nele, 'stated the unasserted assumption' is completely meaningless in
>English. I suspect it is equally meaningless in German!

Well, I tried to say "stellt die unbegruendete Behauptung" auf. Certainly
you will give me a better translation :)

>> that there was a
>> forgery-conspiracy, the conclusion is allowed that some NS-documents
>> could have been forged? You are not serious about that, are you? :)

>I really don't know because your attempt to misrepresent me was in such
>bad English that, at this time in the morning, it reads rather like
>Swahili when spoken with a Serbo-Croat accent.

Ah, a nearly imaginative excuse for not telling me what exactly I should
have misrepresented. But that's the difference between the two of us.
When I point out that you have misrepresented me, I always show why. You
simply claim to be misrepresented and say nothing more. It's open to the
"gentle lurker" to draw his conclusions :)

Anyway. Sorry to break the news on you, flawed logic remains flawed
logic - it doesn't matter in which language it is written.

[...]

>> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
>> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes
>> to my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.

>I'm not even going to try to guess that one.

Holocaust-denial and deconstructivism look similar at the surface, Deborah
Lipstadt has said something on that issue, but you obviously haven't read
her book (see below).

[...]

>> > or are locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are
>> > denied access.
>>
>> This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had
>> spent so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of
>> these incriminating documents?

>He found what he was looking for -- the plates of the Goebbels diaries.
>They won't let us near many of the archives.

Strange. In one sentence you say that David Irving spends time in archives
and finds what he is looking for. In the next you say that "they" (whoever
that may be) keep people like Irving away from archives so that
"revisionists" are not able to find what they are looking for!?! :)

Or are you implying that there are some "secret archives" in which the
incriminating stuff is collected? My, you know little about archives...

>> How comes that Faurisson worked ardently in an
>> archive with the INTENTION of disproving the Holocaust but came to the
>> conclusion that "revisionism" is a hoax?

>That's news to me. Evidence? Or is that another lie?

Ah, you haven't read "Denying the Holocaust" and "The crematories of
Auschwitz". Yet you would talk about these books. Strange thing...

[No document which speaks against the Holocaust?]

>Not the case. I've posted a whole bunch of examples. In threads in which
>you have attempted to contribute! Why are you telling lies?

Well, perhaps I have overlooked them. Till now, I have only seen
"revisionist" claims. I still have to see the first authentic "document".
Ah, my English leaves me, but since you know so much about languages you
will able to follow me anyway.

Weil das jetzt wieder etwas abstrakt wird: Sie kennen doch den Unterschied
zwischen Quellen und Darstellungen, nicht wahr? Die "Revisionisten"
liefern nur Darstellungen ohne die entsprechenden Quellen - oder sie
faelschen sich was zusammen.

Isn't it so?

[Points addressed by John Morris.]

>> the standard "revisionist" routine. It is
>> the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.

>Well on that you are absolutely wrong. Try reading some revisionist
>material and then come back and tell us the real revisionist point.

*Yawn* The Zuendel-Routine
(www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/incorr/incorrect.014.html)

1. "It is obvious that Revisionists do not "deny" the Jewish Holocaust
as their critics claim."
...
2. "There were no gas chambers and no attempt by the Germans to
exterminate Jewry, expulsion being very different from
extermination;"

The Holocaust IS the attempt of the Germans to exterminate Jewry, partly
with gas chambers. If Ernst Zuendel, one of the most prominent
"Revisionists" denies that, how can I have said something absolutely
wrong?

[...]

> On the other hand, "revisionists" cry red murder when someone actually
> does the work to point out "revisionist" forgeries or their
> misrepresentation of academic literature and historical sources. These are
> then ad hominem attacks. A bit hypocritical, isn't it?

>Give me an example and I'll look at it. So far all I've seen from you is
>fantasy. You have an image of revisionism in your mind and you are
>projecting it onto us. You do not appear to have any interest in whether
>the image is a distorted one.

More or less randomly taken from "Codoh" about B. Bailer-Galanda who
unmasked the Lachout-document as crude forgery. Author is Germar Rudolf,
criticising "Truth and Auschwitz-Lie", a book which makes him look a bit
stupid:

What is more, Bailer-Galanda was not aquitted because here allegations
were correct, but because the steps she took lent themselves to
combating neo-Nazi activities. Clearly the justice system feels that
even unprovable and possibly slanderous claims are permissible as
long as they are directed against the proper object.
(www.codoh.com/rudolf/rukritik/html)

So who is crying red murder now?

[...]

>> (Nizkor doesn't really count because it's main intent is
>> the refute of Holocaust-denial. It gives only a narrow view on the
>> history of the 3rd Reich.)

>Nele, you are talking absolute goose droppings.

Mhm. We could ask Ken McVay, but I don't think that he intended Nizkor as
a general archive on the history of the 3rd Reich.

[...]

>My view is narrowed because I have to spend so much time dealing with
>out-and-out liars like you, sir.

Nobody forces you to post in alt.revisionism.

>> Perhaps the British article included a forged Goebbels speech.

>Come on! Did it or did it not? You've read all these non-revisionist
>books! Tell us!

Again you fail to see my point. Again you prove that you know *nothing*
about history. Again you show that you are too impatient even to read
before you answer.

[...]

>God alone knows what that is supposed to mean. Don't they teach English
>in Germany, or Albania, or wherever you come from?

Say, I could imagine that you are a bit angry that Britain has lost all
those nice colonies. Eh, old chap? :)

[...]

>1. We have not succeeded in proving any forgeries. (Refutations: Hitler
>diaries,

Which "revisionist scholar" did prove the Hitler-diaries again?

> Demjanjuk identity card, numerous photographs mentioned on the CODOH
>cite, etc. etc.)

Recycled rubbish, shown worthless years ago...

[...]

>3. Producing falsifiable hypotheses is 'sound methodology' in history.
>(Refutation: read any decent book on the philosophy of the social
>sciences published since 1975.)

And what is a sound method in historiography? Saying "That's all wrong but
I won't tell you what's right?" Pfft.

>4. 'no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
>Holocaust' -- that one is so funny! (Refutation: go to the CODOH website
>for numerous documents that Nele has evidently never seen, or has seen
>and is simply telling lies about them.)

Tell me one - one real, authentic NS-document disproving the Holocaust.
Perhaps it's my own fault, but I find nothing at Codoh. Enlighten me. (And
please don't offer me documents which would prove the Holocaust "if they
weren't forged.")

>5. 'It is the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.'
>(Refutation: again, look it up on the CODOH site.

I looked it up on the Zundel site. He disagrees with you (and with
himself).

>It is the revisionist
>point that many Jews did die, many were maltreated, some were probably
>murdered. It is also the revisionist point that there have been numerous
>distortions and injustices in the conduct of history-making.)

"We don't deny the Holocaust, but we deny the NS-genocide". Impressive
argument, really...

>6. 'It is the "revisionist" point that a conspiracy existed (or exists)
>which massively forges document.' (Refutation -- read any revisionist
>website to observe that Nele does not know what he's talking about.)

Sure, sure. It's only that the "revisionists scholars" claim that somehow
the forgers (when NS-power reached its climax!) must have somehow sneaked
into Goebbels safe to forge his handwriting and at the same time changed
the photographic plates in the Fuehrerkanzlei. Or somehow they achieved to
do this when the plates where in Moscow and the papercopy in the west -
and at the same time they laid a third excerpt on a garbage heap,
conveniently to be found. And all of this without any coordination or
organisation. :)

>7. It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't like is
>forged. (Refutation: well . . . that one's so daft I won't even bother .
>. .)

Sure, how often have we heard the warcry "Forgery! Forgery!" from you
"revisionist scholars"? Mind to start a dejanews-search? Obviously you
don't SAY that you are doing so. Ack, this is getting too ridiculous...

>10 When I stated that 'You cannot trust "the documents" that "prove" the
>Establishment view of World War II' Nele stated: 'With this little
>sentence you declare that historiography is impossible.' (Refutation: no
>such declaration was made or implied.)

Yes it was, but you didn't notice, because you know too little about the
methods and theory of history. (Doesn't matter that you enjoy in to drop
in a phrase or two. It's painfully obvious that you don't know what you
are talking about.)

>Now what will Nele the Spammer do? Will he apologize like a man? Or will
>we get more lies and smears and spam from Nele the Spammer? I know which
>way I am betting!

You mean that you are betting that I won't remain silent. There you are
right.

David

[David]

Mike Curtis wrote:

> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> David caught with his pants down goes into attack dog mode. Should
> anyone be surprised.
>
> [Deleted matters addressed by others.]
>

> >> Many of us read Codoh also and David Irving along
> >> with all those historians you don't like even though I suspect you
> >> haven't read.
> >
> >God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
> >then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was. You can't
>

> My true expertise, Mr. M, is in American Colonial History.

OK. I'll think of an American colonial history question and test THAT claim!

> I do
> Holocaust/holocaust history as a *hobby.* You ask me about a late 20th
> century figure and I tell you I don't know who he is.

A very famous figure. And you were sneering at me because you thought you were a
'historian'.

> I could have
> searched the web and told you who he was to avoid all this attack-dog
> nonsense and I regret I didn't.

It wouldn't have done any good. I misspelled the name.

> But I don't depend upon the web and my
> time is valuable.

Moved into stocks and shares now have we?

> We come to find that this figure was irrelevant to
> the holocaust and even more irrelevant when the discussion was
> actually 1945-46 Nuremberg and the beginnings of the cold war's
> effects on that trial.

But not irrelevant to the fact that you like sneering at others who are not
historians. Which, of course, makes you fair game for a little probing to discover
how much of an historian YOU are!

> But you go ahead and distort what happened
> during that discussion when you were hiding behind the name Cuddles.
>

Not at all. It's there for all to see! You were sneering away about how little I know
about history, I asked you a simple historical question 'Who was General Jaruzelski?'
and you couldn't answer. Then months later you claimed to specialize in Belsen. I
asked you a Belsen question and you couldn't answer that either!

> >answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim that your field is
> >Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You can't answer -- you just snip
> >the question. But you still wander around with your nose in the air, post after
> >post, speculating on what your OPPONENT's don't know about history!
>

> That is the area I concentrate on, Belsen, in my holocaust hobby. It
> is a vast field so I tend to specialize my interests. Because of
> Raven's article I did a lot of study on Hoess. Because of his article
> I read lots of other material. It resulted in the many part article I
> posted. I didn't rely on the WWW at all. In the end Raven's article
> wasn't all that impressive after all.
>

> My field is these days is none of your business.

Yup it is. If you sneer at me because I'm not an historian, then I can sneer at you
because you're not one. Difference is, I don't go around claiming to be one. I'm just
a simple man asking simple questions, and exposing simple hypocrites, Mike.

> My personal life is
> none of your business. I'm aware that you can't focus on the history
> because you keep getting beat up all the time and would rather attack
> someone personally because it is easier.

I have yet to see you post anything in which you don't attack people personally. I
switch attack mode off when I'm seriously discussing a point with someone who's
genuinely making a serious point. You don't. It's your hypocrisy that leaves me
gasping.

> Many of us know exactly what
> you are about.
>

Go on . . . attribute some more nefarious motives to me, historian Curtis. Let's see
some more lies.

>
> You marginalize yourself.
>

Not only is that incomprehensible but it is second hand. Try to invent your own
insults for once.

>
> [snipped another personal attack.]
>
> [snip]
>
> There's nothing here worth taking the time to address. Try addressing
> the articles I wrote, David. Try dealing with the primary
> documentation.
>
> Mike Curtis
>
>

David

[David]

Mike Curtis wrote:

> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, David wrote:
> >> > Mike Curtis wrote:
> >> [...]

> >> > God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
> >> > then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was.
> >>

> >> Wasn't he the Polnish president in the 80's? (From the top of my head)
> >>

> >> > You can't answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim
> >> > that your field is Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You
> >> > can't answer -- you just snip the question. But you still wander around
> >> > with your nose in the air, post after post, speculating on what your
> >> > OPPONENT's don't know about history!
> >>

> >> Anyway, you see - this is exactly what Mike Curtis, Mark Van Alstine, John
> >> Morris and my humble self are talking about. You mistake history for a
> >> catalogue of trivia
> >
> >Here we go again, attributing to me views that I do not hold. History is not a
> >catalogue of trivia. It is concerned with the interpretation of purported past
> >events.
>
> Actually it isn't simply that. No. I'd tell you what it is to me in
> simple terms but you wouldn't want to admit that you understand.
>

Since you have dismissed the entire subject of philosophy as 'bullshit', I am inclined
to suppose that your views on the philosophy of history are hardly likely to be worth
soliciting.

<snip>

David

[Mike Curtis]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Since you have dismissed the entire subject of philosophy as 'bullshit', I am inclined
>to suppose that your views on the philosophy of history are hardly likely to be worth
>soliciting.

David is there something to gain in mischaracterizing the arguments of
those you converse with? Do you actually think you are scoring debate
points or something? I realize you find it very easy to go after the
person for that is just insult101. It doesn't display anything that
approaches cleverness. Do you realize that?

Mike Curtis

[Mike Curtis]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>
>> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>

>> David caught with his pants down goes into attack dog mode. Should
>> anyone be surprised.
>>
>> [Deleted matters addressed by others.]
>>

>> >> Many of us read Codoh also and David Irving along
>> >> with all those historians you don't like even though I suspect you
>> >> haven't read.
>> >
>> >God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
>> >then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was. You can't
>>

>> My true expertise, Mr. M, is in American Colonial History.
>
>OK. I'll think of an American colonial history question and test THAT claim!

Of course you will. but then you are one her thinks that when someone
says that Abraham Lincoln is the 16th president of the United States
that this is simply an interpretation.

>> I do
>> Holocaust/holocaust history as a *hobby.* You ask me about a late 20th
>> century figure and I tell you I don't know who he is.
>
>A very famous figure. And you were sneering at me because you thought you were a
>'historian'.

I know quite a bit about the subjects I spend time on and study. There
are many things I chose not to study because I frankly don't care or
don't have the time. Admitting that I don't know something was simply
being honest and not meant to fodder for your juvenile attack-dog
tactics.

[snip]

>> We come to find that this figure was irrelevant to
>> the holocaust and even more irrelevant when the discussion was
>> actually 1945-46 Nuremberg and the beginnings of the cold war's
>> effects on that trial.
>
>But not irrelevant to the fact that you like sneering at others who are not
>historians. Which, of course, makes you fair game for a little probing to discover
>how much of an historian YOU are!

I'm sneering at you. Why you poor misguided child.

>> But you go ahead and distort what happened
>> during that discussion when you were hiding behind the name Cuddles.
>>
>
>Not at all. It's there for all to see! You were sneering away about how little I know
>about history, I asked you a simple historical question 'Who was General Jaruzelski?'
>and you couldn't answer. Then months later you claimed to specialize in Belsen. I
>asked you a Belsen question and you couldn't answer that either!

No, I said my interest and concentration in the holocaust is with
Bergen-Belsen. Many months ago, if not years, I mentioned that my area
of history is colonial. Specifically New England and the Puritans. You
wouldn't understand but that is a sweeping subject also.

>> >answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim that your field is
>> >Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You can't answer -- you just snip
>> >the question. But you still wander around with your nose in the air, post after
>> >post, speculating on what your OPPONENT's don't know about history!
>>

>> That is the area I concentrate on, Belsen, in my holocaust hobby. It
>> is a vast field so I tend to specialize my interests. Because of
>> Raven's article I did a lot of study on Hoess. Because of his article
>> I read lots of other material. It resulted in the many part article I
>> posted. I didn't rely on the WWW at all. In the end Raven's article
>> wasn't all that impressive after all.
>>
>
>> My field is these days is none of your business.
>
>Yup it is. If you sneer at me because I'm not an historian, then I can sneer at you

If I sneer at you at all, it is because you are willfully misinformed
and when caught at it you go after the individual rather than try and
learn something. Actually, you aren't even worth sneering at. All this
sneering is in your own mind.

>because you're not one. Difference is, I don't go around claiming to be one. I'm just
>a simple man asking simple questions, and exposing simple hypocrites, Mike.

Look in the mirror, David, you aren't fooling anyone.

>> My personal life is
>> none of your business. I'm aware that you can't focus on the history
>> because you keep getting beat up all the time and would rather attack
>> someone personally because it is easier.
>
>I have yet to see you post anything in which you don't attack people personally. I
>switch attack mode off when I'm seriously discussing a point with someone who's
>genuinely making a serious point. You don't. It's your hypocrisy that leaves me
>gasping.

Really. Oh, well. I guess the argument that they do it too is a
rational one for you.

>> There's nothing here worth taking the time to address. Try addressing
>> the articles I wrote, David. Try dealing with the primary
>> documentation.

Couldn't do it, huh? Attacking me and making me the issue is sooo much
easier isn't it transparent one.

Mike Curtis

[David]

Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:

> >OK.
>
> >You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
> >get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
> >expose you and your kind once and for all.
>
> Gosh. You mean we should step outside and handle this like real men? :)
>
> >I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
> >expose you for the liar that you are.
>
> You know, David, you have that strange habit of always calling people
> "liar" when you are cornered.

Even when I am not cornered if they tell lies, Nele.

> You have done it so often that I somehow
> can't take you seriously. Your little outbreak is at best mildly amusing.
>
> Anyway. John Morris was so kind to answer already most of the "points"
> you have made, saying more or less what I would have liked to say. Thus it
> will be sufficient for me to throw in a remark or two. I will leave the
> merit of being repetitive to the "revisionist scholars".
>
> [I mention a thesis put forward in current historical discussion. Is it
> a refutable hypothesis? If no, why not? David answers:]
>
> >Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
> >bad your English is?
>
> Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
> am *really* impressed :) Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
> wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
> schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
> auszutauschen. Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
> klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
> Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden. Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
> entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?
>
> Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
> speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
> am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
> dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".
>

Nope, just learn our language properly before you try to argue in it.

> [...]
> >The notion that criticism of a position is 'not scholarship' is
> >interesting. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'scholarship'.
>
> *Yawn* Misquotations, misrepresentations as usual. I did not say that
> criticism is not scholarly, I have said that the deniers' way of criticism
> is not scholarly, even more, deliberately unprofessional.
>
> >However, I am not interested in Establishment 'scholarship'. I am
> >interested in Establishment lies and hypocrisy.
>
> You mean, you look at the documentary evidence on the premise that an
> assumed hypocritical "establishment" lies and forges?

Nope. I mean what I say.

> That's admittedly a
> sound method to find the historical truth :)

And one that I dare say you will attribute to me.

>
> [About "revisionst" speculations on forged documents:]
> >> Yes, but you do not succeed in proving any forgeries.
>
> >Duh! So you believe the Hitler Diaries are genuine? Eh?
>
> >So you are a liar.
>
> *Yawn* Don't be so illogical, David. It were not the "revisionist
> scholars" who proved the Hitler forgery, therefore your conclusion is
> invalid...

Ah, forgive me. I seem to recall Mr Irving having some small role in that business.
Try:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Torpedo/Intro.html

> (I have always liked the British debating clubs. Why didn't you
> join one, you could have learned a thing or two.)

If you liked that sort of sixth-form childishness, Nele, I can only suppose it is
because your English was not good enough to permit you to comprehend it.

>
> [No evidence for forged Holocaust-documents?]
>
> >No. It has been produced. I posted tons of it. You're just not honest
> >enough to admit it.
>
> Sure. You have posted the same unprofessional rubbish which I have already
> read back in 1996 when I first heard about a.r.

Interesting because I was not posting in 1996.

> Over the last years the
> "revisionist arguments" have been refuted again and the again.

And what refutations they are. They 'refute' the claim that Hoess was tortured --
something claimed by Hoess, his torturer, a man who was with Hoess at the time, and
which prompted the intervention of the prosecutor at one stage, by . . . observing
that I haven't posted primary documentation! They refute the 'Wolnik' paradox by
observing that Hoess's directions lead precisely to Sobibor. The problem being that
Hoess's directions lead precisely to a bog in the middle of a Soviet field.
Suuuuuuuure. I have seen your refutations. I have seen your eyewitness testimonies
and captured documents. Some powerful evidence, eh, Nele?

> This
> doesn't hinder deniers to post them yet another time and to stubbornly
> ignore any counter-arguments. You are just another "revisionist scholar"
> in a long row... They come and go, often they re-appear under yet
> another false name to repeat their pseudo-history once again.

Another lie. I am now posting under my own name, Dr David E Michael.

> Why can't you stick your head above this rabble and *finally* try to do
> something more productive than just cutting and pasting Codoh-rubbish?

Because you'd only claim it to be 'irrelevant', wouldn't you Nele?

>
> >> Ironically, the only forgery relevant to the
> >> issue is a production of "revisionist scholarship"....
>
> And here David remains silent. One wonders why :>
>

Because it is a lie. I have posted lists and lists of forgeries.

> [Points addressed by John Morris...]
>
> >> Wait a moment. Now you are trying to argue that because "revisionist
> >> scholars" put forward the hypothesis that some documents were forged
> >> and because you have stated the unasserted assumption
>
> >Nele, 'stated the unasserted assumption' is completely meaningless in
> >English. I suspect it is equally meaningless in German!
>
> Well, I tried to say "stellt die unbegruendete Behauptung" auf. Certainly
> you will give me a better translation :)
>

Makes even less sense than it does in English, Nele.

> >> that there was a
> >> forgery-conspiracy, the conclusion is allowed that some NS-documents
> >> could have been forged? You are not serious about that, are you? :)
>
> >I really don't know because your attempt to misrepresent me was in such
> >bad English that, at this time in the morning, it reads rather like
> >Swahili when spoken with a Serbo-Croat accent.
>
> Ah, a nearly imaginative excuse for not telling me what exactly I should
> have misrepresented. But that's the difference between the two of us.
> When I point out that you have misrepresented me, I always show why. You
> simply claim to be misrepresented and say nothing more. It's open to the
> "gentle lurker" to draw his conclusions :)
>

If you look at the post to which you are attempting to respond you will find that
it listed 10 examples of your lies AND, sir, showed you why they were lies. (Hint
-- the bits in brackets beginning 'Refutation'.)

> Anyway. Sorry to break the news on you, flawed logic remains flawed
> logic - it doesn't matter in which language it is written.
>

Agreed. Problem is that if the language is bad enough one can't even get as far as
examining the logic at all.

> [...]
> >> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
> >> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes
> >> to my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.
>
> >I'm not even going to try to guess that one.
>
> Holocaust-denial and deconstructivism look similar at the surface, Deborah
> Lipstadt has said something on that issue, but you obviously haven't read
> her book (see below).
>

I am not interested in 'deconstructivism' or 'bourgeous formalism' or 'reactionary
capitalism' or any of your other 'isms'. I never cease to be amazed at the
Establishment's fondness for classifying people as proponents of 'isms'.

>
> [...]
> >> > or are locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are
> >> > denied access.
> >>
> >> This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had
> >> spent so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of
> >> these incriminating documents?
>
> >He found what he was looking for -- the plates of the Goebbels diaries.
> >They won't let us near many of the archives.
>
> Strange. In one sentence you say that David Irving spends time in archives
> and finds what he is looking for. In the next you say that "they" (whoever
> that may be) keep people like Irving away from archives so that
> "revisionists" are not able to find what they are looking for!?! :)
>
> Or are you implying that there are some "secret archives" in which the
> incriminating stuff is collected? My, you know little about archives...
>

More than you do, it seems, since you raise such a daft point.

> >> How comes that Faurisson worked ardently in an
> >> archive with the INTENTION of disproving the Holocaust but came to the
> >> conclusion that "revisionism" is a hoax?
>
> >That's news to me. Evidence? Or is that another lie?
>
> Ah, you haven't read "Denying the Holocaust" and "The crematories of
> Auschwitz". Yet you would talk about these books. Strange thing...
>

Excuse me? Where did I refer to either?

> [No document which speaks against the Holocaust?]
> >Not the case. I've posted a whole bunch of examples. In threads in which
> >you have attempted to contribute! Why are you telling lies?
>
> Well, perhaps I have overlooked them. Till now, I have only seen
> "revisionist" claims. I still have to see the first authentic "document".
> Ah, my English leaves me, but since you know so much about languages you
> will able to follow me anyway.
>

Try Gibberish. It would probably make more sense.

>
> Weil das jetzt wieder etwas abstrakt wird: Sie kennen doch den Unterschied
> zwischen Quellen und Darstellungen, nicht wahr? Die "Revisionisten"
> liefern nur Darstellungen ohne die entsprechenden Quellen - oder sie
> faelschen sich was zusammen.

As I say, Gibberish would make more sense!

> Isn't it so?

Undoubtedly!

>
> [Points addressed by John Morris.]
>
> >> the standard "revisionist" routine. It is
> >> the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.
>
> >Well on that you are absolutely wrong. Try reading some revisionist
> >material and then come back and tell us the real revisionist point.
>
> *Yawn* The Zuendel-Routine
> (www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/incorr/incorrect.014.html)
>
> 1. "It is obvious that Revisionists do not "deny" the Jewish Holocaust
> as their critics claim."
>

Thank you.

> ...
> 2. "There were no gas chambers and no attempt by the Germans to
> exterminate Jewry, expulsion being very different from
> extermination;"
>
> The Holocaust IS the attempt of the Germans to exterminate Jewry, partly
> with gas chambers.

Well you are certainly not going to prove it by telling lies about what other
people believe, are you?

> If Ernst Zuendel, one of the most prominent
> "Revisionists" denies that, how can I have said something absolutely
> wrong?

Look at the quotes above. You said:

'It is the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.'

Zuendel said:

'It is obvious that Revisionists do not "deny" the Jewish Holocaust as their
critics claim.'

>

> [...]
> > On the other hand, "revisionists" cry red murder when someone actually
> > does the work to point out "revisionist" forgeries or their
> > misrepresentation of academic literature and historical sources. These are
> > then ad hominem attacks. A bit hypocritical, isn't it?
>
> >Give me an example and I'll look at it. So far all I've seen from you is
> >fantasy. You have an image of revisionism in your mind and you are
> >projecting it onto us. You do not appear to have any interest in whether
> >the image is a distorted one.
>
> More or less randomly taken from "Codoh" about B. Bailer-Galanda who
> unmasked the Lachout-document as crude forgery. Author is Germar Rudolf,
> criticising "Truth and Auschwitz-Lie", a book which makes him look a bit
> stupid:
>
> What is more, Bailer-Galanda was not aquitted because here allegations
> were correct, but because the steps she took lent themselves to
> combating neo-Nazi activities. Clearly the justice system feels that
> even unprovable and possibly slanderous claims are permissible as
> long as they are directed against the proper object.
> (www.codoh.com/rudolf/rukritik/html)
>
> So who is crying red murder now?
>

BLUE murder, Nele. BLUE.

I don't follow your argument at all. Who is crying 'red murder'?

>
> [...]
> >> (Nizkor doesn't really count because it's main intent is
> >> the refute of Holocaust-denial. It gives only a narrow view on the
> >> history of the 3rd Reich.)
>
> >Nele, you are talking absolute goose droppings.
>
> Mhm. We could ask Ken McVay, but I don't think that he intended Nizkor as
> a general archive on the history of the 3rd Reich.
>

Why doesn't quoting from Nizkor count? Come on!

> [...]
> >My view is narrowed because I have to spend so much time dealing with
> >out-and-out liars like you, sir.
>
> Nobody forces you to post in alt.revisionism.
>

Yes, but if I don't there's not many people around to expose your nonsense.

>
> >> Perhaps the British article included a forged Goebbels speech.
>
> >Come on! Did it or did it not? You've read all these non-revisionist
> >books! Tell us!
>
> Again you fail to see my point. Again you prove that you know *nothing*
> about history.

False. I know that Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of Britain in 1979.
You see . . . another lie exposed!

> Again you show that you are too impatient even to read
> before you answer.

Try posting something other than lies and inventions and I might be more patient.

> [...]
> >God alone knows what that is supposed to mean. Don't they teach English
> >in Germany, or Albania, or wherever you come from?
>
> Say, I could imagine that you are a bit angry that Britain has lost all
> those nice colonies. Eh, old chap? :)
>

Sorry, old chap, you have lapsed into incoherence.

> [...]
> >1. We have not succeeded in proving any forgeries. (Refutations: Hitler
> >diaries,
>
> Which "revisionist scholar" did prove the Hitler-diaries again?
>

Now what was you saying about me not knowing ANYTHING about history? Click on this
and give yourself a very unpleasant surprise:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Torpedo/Intro.html

Hehe!

Splattered, Nele?

>
> > Demjanjuk identity card, numerous photographs mentioned on the CODOH
> >cite, etc. etc.)
>
> Recycled rubbish, shown worthless years ago...
>

Excuse me? Are you saying that the Demjanjuk identity card was NOT a fake? Try
reading something about it before you answer, or you will look just as daft as you
did with point 1 above.

>
> [...]
> >3. Producing falsifiable hypotheses is 'sound methodology' in history.
> >(Refutation: read any decent book on the philosophy of the social
> >sciences published since 1975.)
>
> And what is a sound method in historiography? Saying "That's all wrong but
> I won't tell you what's right?" Pfft.
>

Not at all. There are too many variables for falsifiability to work. People can
change their theories to accommodate contrary evidence. So you need a hermeneutic
approach. Know what that means, Nele?

> >4. 'no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
> >Holocaust' -- that one is so funny! (Refutation: go to the CODOH website
> >for numerous documents that Nele has evidently never seen, or has seen
> >and is simply telling lies about them.)
>
> Tell me one - one real, authentic NS-document disproving the Holocaust.
>

Ah, now you are claiming that no SINGLE NS document DISPROVES the Holocaust. Not
quite the same thing as saying that no document has been put forward as EVIDENCE
AGAINST the Holocaust. But that's OK. If you get caught telling a lie, just pretend
you were saying something different.

> Perhaps it's my own fault, but I find nothing at Codoh. Enlighten me. (And
> please don't offer me documents which would prove the Holocaust "if they
> weren't forged.")
>
> >5. 'It is the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.'
> >(Refutation: again, look it up on the CODOH site.
>
> I looked it up on the Zundel site. He disagrees with you (and with
> himself).
>

According to you he said:

'It is obvious that Revisionists do not "deny" the Jewish Holocaust as their
critics claim.'

He even put quotes around 'deny' to give you a clue.

> >It is the revisionist
> >point that many Jews did die, many were maltreated, some were probably
> >murdered. It is also the revisionist point that there have been numerous
> >distortions and injustices in the conduct of history-making.)
>
> "We don't deny the Holocaust, but we deny the NS-genocide". Impressive
> argument, really...
>

Try 'we question Holocaust stories'. Unlike you people, who seem to be falling over
yourselves to accept them.

> >6. 'It is the "revisionist" point that a conspiracy existed (or exists)
> >which massively forges document.' (Refutation -- read any revisionist
> >website to observe that Nele does not know what he's talking about.)
>
> Sure, sure. It's only that the "revisionists scholars" claim that somehow
> the forgers (when NS-power reached its climax!) must have somehow sneaked
> into Goebbels safe to forge his handwriting and at the same time changed
> the photographic plates in the Fuehrerkanzlei. Or somehow they achieved to
> do this when the plates where in Moscow and the papercopy in the west -
> and at the same time they laid a third excerpt on a garbage heap,
> conveniently to be found. And all of this without any coordination or
> organisation. :)
>

Ah, so any coordination or organization is a 'conspiracy'. Hmm. So would you say
Nizkor is a 'conspiracy'?

> >7. It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't like is
> >forged. (Refutation: well . . . that one's so daft I won't even bother .
> >. .)
>
> Sure, how often have we heard the warcry "Forgery! Forgery!" from you
> "revisionist scholars"? Mind to start a dejanews-search? Obviously you
> don't SAY that you are doing so. Ack, this is getting too ridiculous...
>

I am not sure what you are trying to say there, Nele. Perhaps the words you were
looking for are: 'Yes, I lied! Sorry!'

> >10 When I stated that 'You cannot trust "the documents" that "prove" the
> >Establishment view of World War II' Nele stated: 'With this little
> >sentence you declare that historiography is impossible.' (Refutation: no
> >such declaration was made or implied.)
>
> Yes it was, but you didn't notice, because you know too little about the
> methods and theory of history.

Could you tell me how you know about what I know about the methods and theory of
history? Coming from a man who seemed to view falsificationism as a productive
method for research into history your views on this subject would be truly
fascinating.

> (Doesn't matter that you enjoy in to drop
> in a phrase or two. It's painfully obvious that you don't know what you
> are talking about.)
>

Try learning English then you would understand.

>
> >Now what will Nele the Spammer do? Will he apologize like a man? Or will
> >we get more lies and smears and spam from Nele the Spammer? I know which
> >way I am betting!
>
> You mean that you are betting that I won't remain silent. There you are
> right.
>

Well if you are going to make noises, please make intelligible ones.

>
> David
>
> Nele
> --
> Et, au resvail, quant le ventre luy bruit,
> Monte sur moy, que ne gaste son fruit.
> Soubz elle geins, plus qu'un aiz me fait plat;
> De paillarder tout elle me destruit,
> En ce bordeau out tenans nostre estat.
> (Ballade de Villon de la Grosse Margot)

David

[David]

Mike Curtis wrote:

Author: Mike Curtis
Message ID: <35adf28b...@news.sig.net>
Date: 1998/07/16

<begin quote>
'I won't talk about philosophy'
<end quote>

Author: Mike Curtis
Message-ID: <35ada24f....@news.sig.net>
Date: 1998/07/14

<begin quote>
You want to discuss philosophy and attempt to make moral equivalencies. You're boring,
whoever you are.
<end quote>

Author: Mike Curtis
Message-ID: <35b58e03...@news.sig.net>
Date: 1998/07/21

<begin quote>
I don't care about philosophy
<end quote>

Author: Mike Curtis
Message-ID: <35af0c24...@news.sig.net>
Date: 1998/07/15

<begin quote>
This isn't revisionism. It is pure bullshit.
<end quote>

Author: Mike Curtis
Message-ID: <35adad7b...@news.sig.net>
Date: 1998/07/15

<begin quote>
Philosophy of knowlwedge has nothing to with the examination of
primary materials and building a history of an event.
<end quote>

Same post:

<begin quote>
Socrates, Plato, Kant, and Hume were dead by 1933.
<end quote>

Author: Mike Curtis
Message-ID: <35a65590....@news.sig.net>
Date: 1998/07/10

<begin quote>
For me history isn't philosophy.
<end quote>

Author: Mike Curtis
Message-ID: <35ad5839....@news.sig.net>
Date: 1998/07/14

<begin quote>
If you want to discuss philosophy you need to find someone who wants
to discuss trivia. I suspect they aren't here in this newsgroup. Maybe
Fergus will. He tends to lean in that boring direction also at times.
<end quote>

Now, Mr Curtis. Would you be so good as to inform us all how your views on philosophy were
being 'mischaracterized'?

David

[Mike Curtis]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>And what refutations they are. They 'refute' the claim that Hoess was tortured --

No one refutes that Hoess wasn't badly treated in the hands of the
original British captures. In fact, he was, deprived of sleep and
searched for life threatening drugs. He may even have been roughed up.
Though the picture I have of Hoess being interrogated by a British
officer shows a tired but unmarked Hoess. They all admit that they
wanted him to confess his name. Even then all the folks here have been
more than willing to drop that particular affidavit. You seem to
continue to ignore that. How come?

>something claimed by Hoess, his torturer, a man who was with Hoess at the time, and
>which prompted the intervention of the prosecutor at one stage, by . . . observing
>that I haven't posted primary documentation!

Yet you sit there and mix up the various events. This doesn't seem to
bother you. I know that you know you are mixing up events. First there
was the British capture and mistreatment that is admitted by the
British and is mentioned by Hoess in his memoirs written after his
trial in Poland. (That's the affidavit all of are willing to drop.)
Then he goes on as a defense witness at Nuremberg.

Nuremberg was "like a health spa." He was cross-examined twice by the
prosecution for discovery purposes and also provided testimony for
Kaltenbrunner. He wasn't mistreated at all.

Then he moved on to Poland where he was not treated well by his
keepers. This is where there was an intervention. But you don't much
discuss what the mistreatment was. Everything for you falls under the
banner of torture. This is honest? This type of umbrella use of a
pejorative is historical?

> They refute the 'Wolnik' paradox by
>observing that Hoess's directions lead precisely to Sobibor.

Which they seem to do. But then this tiny matter is so massive a error
in the simple minds of deniers that they want to explode everything
that Hoess said despite the fact that other testimony by Kremer,
Kramer, Eichmann, Broad, Hoessler, and Grese tend to support Hoess.
Those are just Nazi witnesses. We can also look at the testimony from
survivors and other documents that will also support Hoess.

> The problem being that
>Hoess's directions lead precisely to a bog in the middle of a Soviet field.
>Suuuuuuuure. I have seen your refutations. I have seen your eyewitness testimonies
>and captured documents. Some powerful evidence, eh, Nele?

Nele is right to simply yawn in your direction.

[snip that which has nothing to do with history]

>> Again you fail to see my point. Again you prove that you know *nothing*
>> about history.
>
>False. I know that Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of Britain in 1979.
>You see . . . another lie exposed!

But that's simply an interpretation you have no proof.

>> >It is the revisionist
>> >point that many Jews did die, many were maltreated, some were probably
>> >murdered. It is also the revisionist point that there have been numerous
>> >distortions and injustices in the conduct of history-making.)
>>
>> "We don't deny the Holocaust, but we deny the NS-genocide". Impressive
>> argument, really...
>>
>
>Try 'we question Holocaust stories'. Unlike you people, who seem to be falling over
>yourselves to accept them.

Actually this isn't true. But don't let that bother you. I had trouble
believing that so many were killed at Shiloh and other Civil War
battles. I was amazed that Lee ordered Pickett to charge the center of
a line. But he did. Gosh, how do we know that.

I was shocked that the brave English colonists would avoid attacking
Indian warriors in 1637 and attack Mystic Fort. Mystic fort was
occupied by old men, women and children. Pretty sad, huh? But how do
we know they did that?

>Ah, so any coordination or organization is a 'conspiracy'. Hmm. So would you say
>Nizkor is a 'conspiracy'?

Oh, yes, Nizkor is a massive conspiracy. You bet.

[snipped the rest of ther personal attacks]

Mike Curtis

[Mark Van Alstine]

In article
<Pine.LNX.3.96.990224...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
Nele Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

[snip]

> >Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
> >bad your English is?
>
> Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
> am *really* impressed :) Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
> wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
> schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
> auszutauschen. Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
> klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
> Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden. Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
> entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?

ROTFL! DavidM ran, not walked, right into that one! Maybe he can ask
Jew-Hating Joe, the expert-on-everything-under-the-sun (TM), to help him
out? <snicker>

> Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
> speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
> am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
> dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".

Forty lashes with a wet noodle for that! And let it be a lesson too! :-)

[snip]

> [No evidence for forged Holocaust-documents?]
>
> >No. It has been produced. I posted tons of it. You're just not honest
> >enough to admit it.
>
> Sure. You have posted the same unprofessional rubbish which I have already
> read back in 1996 when I first heard about a.r. Over the last years the
> "revisionist arguments" have been refuted again and the again. This
> doesn't hinder deniers to post them yet another time and to stubbornly
> ignore any counter-arguments. You are just another "revisionist scholar"
> in a long row... They come and go, often they re-appear under yet
> another false name to repeat their pseudo-history once again.

IOW, DavidM is yet another fanatical Holocaust denier. No suprises there.

> Why can't you stick your head above this rabble and *finally* try to do
> something more productive than just cutting and pasting Codoh-rubbish?

Because DavidM is a fanatical Holocaust denier?

BTW, for those, like DavidM, to whom a dictionary is gospel:

fanatical adj. motivated or characterized by an extremem, uncritical
enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.... Syn. enthusiastic,
zealous, frenzied, rabid. See intolerant, radical.

_Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Lanuage_

[snip]

> >> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
> >> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes
> >> to my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.
>
> >I'm not even going to try to guess that one.
>
> Holocaust-denial and deconstructivism look similar at the surface, Deborah
> Lipstadt has said something on that issue, but you obviously haven't read
> her book (see below).

Keith Windschuttle also offers a damning critique of the
postmodern/poststructuralist attack on history and how it is written.

It is also interesting to note that Heidigger, one of the "giants" of
postmodernist thought, was an anti-Semite, a Nazi stool pigeon in the
1930's, and a "financial member" of the NSDAP from 1933 to 1945. He
believed "that his philosophy confirmed the 'inner truth and greatness' of
the Nazi movement." (Cf. Windschuttle, _The Killing of History_, p.12.)

[snip]

[Mike Curtis]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>
>> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >

>> >Since you have dismissed the entire subject of philosophy as 'bullshit', I am inclined
>> >to suppose that your views on the philosophy of history are hardly likely to be worth
>> >soliciting.
>>
>> David is there something to gain in mischaracterizing the arguments of
>> those you converse with? Do you actually think you are scoring debate
>> points or something? I realize you find it very easy to go after the
>> person for that is just insult101. It doesn't display anything that
>> approaches cleverness. Do you realize that?
>>
>> Mike Curtis
>>

Let's take a look at David's out of context claims.

>'I won't talk about philosophy'

What is missing is that I wanted to discuss history and not
philosophy.

>You want to discuss philosophy and attempt to make moral equivalencies. You're boring,
>whoever you are.

Again this is the same thing. You wanted to philosophize endlessly and
ignore history. I think even John Morris took the time to point out
the errors in your philosophy. Did you forget?

>I don't care about philosophy

What is missing is that I wanted to discuss history and not
philosophy.

>Author: Mike Curtis
>Message-ID: <35af0c24...@news.sig.net>
>Date: 1998/07/15
>
><begin quote>
>This isn't revisionism. It is pure bullshit.

What is missing is that I wanted to discuss history and not
philosophy. I have yet to see where I said "philosophy is bullshit."

>Philosophy of knowlwedge has nothing to with the examination of
>primary materials and building a history of an event.

>Same post:

>Socrates, Plato, Kant, and Hume were dead by 1933.

>For me history isn't philosophy.
>

>If you want to discuss philosophy you need to find someone who wants
>to discuss trivia. I suspect they aren't here in this newsgroup. Maybe
>Fergus will. He tends to lean in that boring direction also at times.

>Now, Mr Curtis. Would you be so good as to inform us all how your views on philosophy were
>being 'mischaracterized'?

Yes, David. Nowhere did I say that "philosophy is bullshit." Point
goes to me. Your attempts to avoid history and discuss the philosophy
of history were boring and trivial. So you keep mischaracterizing the
arguments of others. that is what you are an expert at. You are not an
expert at any kind of historical discussion and that is patently
obvious to myself, Nele and John Morris.

Mike Curtis

[yale_f._edeiken]

> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:

> Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:

> > *Yawn* Don't be so illogical, David. It were not the "revisionist
> > scholars" who proved the Hitler forgery, therefore your conclusion is
> > invalid...

> Ah, forgive me. I seem to recall Mr Irving having some small role in that business.
> Try:

You recall wrong. His first announcement was that they were forged
about Trevor-Roper stated they might be genuine. As soon as Trevor-Roper
announced that the diaries were forged Irving changed his mind and publically
anounced that they were genuine.

But then facts were never Lord Haw-Haw's strong point.

> > Sure. You have posted the same unprofessional rubbish which I have already
> > read back in 1996 when I first heard about a.r.

> Interesting because I was not posting in 1996.

Which demonstrates how unoriginal you are.

> > Over the last years the
> > "revisionist arguments" have been refuted again and the again.

> And what refutations they are. They 'refute' the claim that Hoess was tortured --
> something claimed by Hoess, his torturer, a man who was with Hoess at the time,
and which prompted the intervention of the prosecutor at one stage, by . . . observing
> that I haven't posted primary documentation!

There is no such "admission" from his "torturer." Ther man said he slapped
Hoess' face when Hoess denied who he was. That incident was escalated into what
"revisionists" have described as "a brutal beating" and "beat him almost to death."
When confronted with the fact that a picture of Hoess exists a couple of days after he
received the "brutal beating" which shows no marks on his face whatsoever.

You ran from that.

> They refute the 'Wolnik' paradox by
> observing that Hoess's directions lead precisely to Sobibor. The problem being that
> Hoess's directions lead precisely to a bog in the middle of a Soviet field.

Another lie. It was pointed out, as well, that Hoess stated he was never
there. In hardly matters where his directions "precisely" lead, he indicated the general
direction of a place to which he had never been. And he made that indication without
consulting a map.

You further stated that you deduced that this was some secret "clue" that
indicated Hoess was "tortured" into writing his memoirs.

Had you read the primary documents: Hoess' memoirs, Hoess' testimony at
Nuremberg, and the psychological profile of Hoess prepared by a psychologist, you
would have known how silly your "absolute rubbish" was.

> Suuuuuuuure. I have seen your refutations. I have seen your eyewitness testimonies
> and captured documents. Some powerful evidence, eh, Nele?

Yup.

> > >> Ironically, the only forgery relevant to the
> > >> issue is a production of "revisionist scholarship"....

> > And here David remains silent. One wonders why :>

> Because it is a lie. I have posted lists and lists of forgeries.

Only one of which -- the Hitler Diaries -- was a forgery.

> > [Points addressed by John Morris...]

> > Ah, a nearly imaginative excuse for not telling me what exactly I should
> > have misrepresented. But that's the difference between the two of us.
> > When I point out that you have misrepresented me, I always show why. You
> > simply claim to be misrepresented and say nothing more. It's open to the
> > "gentle lurker" to draw his conclusions :)

> If you look at the post to which you are attempting to respond you will find that
> it listed 10 examples of your lies AND, sir, showed you why they were lies. (Hint
> -- the bits in brackets beginning 'Refutation'.)

Hint: they were as silly as the rest of the claims you cribbed from CODOH.

> > [...]
> > >> > or are locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are
> > >> > denied access.

> > >> This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had
> > >> spent so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of
> > >> these incriminating documents?

> > >He found what he was looking for -- the plates of the Goebbels diaries.
> > >They won't let us near many of the archives.

> > Strange. In one sentence you say that David Irving spends time in archives
> > and finds what he is looking for. In the next you say that "they" (whoever
> > that may be) keep people like Irving away from archives so that
> > "revisionists" are not able to find what they are looking for!?! :)

> > Or are you implying that there are some "secret archives" in which the
> > incriminating stuff is collected? My, you know little about archives...

> More than you do, it seems, since you raise such a daft point.

A dodge almost as bad as his associate's.

> > [Points addressed by John Morris.]

> > >> the standard "revisionist" routine. It is
> > >> the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.

> > >Well on that you are absolutely wrong. Try reading some revisionist
> > >material and then come back and tell us the real revisionist point.

> > *Yawn* The Zuendel-Routine
> > (www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/incorr/incorrect.014.html)

> > 1. "It is obvious that Revisionists do not "deny" the Jewish Holocaust
> > as their critics claim."

> Thank you.

> > 2. "There were no gas chambers and no attempt by the Germans to

> > exterminate Jewry, expulsion being very different from
> > extermination;"

> > The Holocaust IS the attempt of the Germans to exterminate Jewry, partly
> > with gas chambers.

> Well you are certainly not going to prove it by telling lies about what other
> people believe, are you?

He doesn't. You, however, do.

> > If Ernst Zuendel, one of the most prominent
> > "Revisionists" denies that, how can I have said something absolutely
> > wrong?

> Look at the quotes above. You said:

> 'It is the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.'

> Zuendel said:

> 'It is obvious that Revisionists do not "deny" the Jewish Holocaust as their
> critics claim.'

And, as you snipped, he directly denies the Holocaust.

> > >5. 'It is the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.'
> > >(Refutation: again, look it up on the CODOH site.

> > I looked it up on the Zundel site. He disagrees with you (and with
> > himself).

> According to you he said:

> 'It is obvious that Revisionists do not "deny" the Jewish Holocaust as their
> critics claim.'

And, as you dishonestly snipped, a statement denying that that Holocaust
occured.

> He even put quotes around 'deny' to give you a clue.

And, as you dishonestly snipped, he then explicitly stated that the Holocaust
has not happened.

> > >It is the revisionist
> > >point that many Jews did die, many were maltreated, some were probably
> > >murdered. It is also the revisionist point that there have been numerous
> > >distortions and injustices in the conduct of history-making.)

> > "We don't deny the Holocaust, but we deny the NS-genocide". Impressive
> > argument, really...

> Try 'we question Holocaust stories'. Unlike you people, who seem to be falling over
> yourselves to accept them.

Another lie. Zundel, the CODOH, and the IHR explicitly deny the Holocaust.

> > >6. 'It is the "revisionist" point that a conspiracy existed (or exists)
> > >which massively forges document.' (Refutation -- read any revisionist
> > >website to observe that Nele does not know what he's talking about.)

> > Sure, sure. It's only that the "revisionists scholars" claim that somehow
> > the forgers (when NS-power reached its climax!) must have somehow sneaked
> > into Goebbels safe to forge his handwriting and at the same time changed
> > the photographic plates in the Fuehrerkanzlei. Or somehow they achieved to
> > do this when the plates where in Moscow and the papercopy in the west -
> > and at the same time they laid a third excerpt on a garbage heap,
> > conveniently to be found. And all of this without any coordination or
> > organisation. :)

> Ah, so any coordination or organization is a 'conspiracy'. Hmm. So would you say
> Nizkor is a 'conspiracy'?

More of Lard Haw-Haw's usual posturing.

> > >7. It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't like is
> > >forged. (Refutation: well . . . that one's so daft I won't even bother .
> > >. .)
>
> > Sure, how often have we heard the warcry "Forgery! Forgery!" from you
> > "revisionist scholars"? Mind to start a dejanews-search? Obviously you
> > don't SAY that you are doing so. Ack, this is getting too ridiculous...

> I am not sure what you are trying to say there, Nele. Perhaps the words you were
> looking for are: 'Yes, I lied! Sorry!'

Perhaps the words he is looking for are "You still don't know what you are
talking about."

> > >10 When I stated that 'You cannot trust "the documents" that "prove" the
> > >Establishment view of World War II' Nele stated: 'With this little
> > >sentence you declare that historiography is impossible.' (Refutation: no
> > >such declaration was made or implied.)

> > Yes it was, but you didn't notice, because you know too little about the
> > methods and theory of history.

> Could you tell me how you know about what I know about the methods and theory
of
> history?

The same way it can be known that your associate, Jew-hating Joe, knows
nothing about Judaism.

[Gord McFee]

In <36D3DE...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:13:17 +0000,
David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

> PHILNANCY wrote:
> >
> > In >Message-id: <36D35A85...@cableinet.co.uk>
> >
> > > David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >

> > >Mike Curtis wrote:
> > >
> > >> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >The aim is not to win arguments but to 'refute and marginalize' those
> > >> >who wish to promote a certain view of history.
> > >>
> > >> You may not realize it but you do marginalize yourself.
> > >
> > >Hmm. I wonder if that's supposed to mean anything . . .
> > >
> > >> Many of us
> > >> look at the sources you choose to cite. You mostly choose CODOH URLs
> > >> and David Irving.
> > >
> > >Rubbish. In the Hoess thread I cited a lot of different sources including
> > >several anti-revisionist sites. As for Irving, I challenge you to find any
> > >other
> > >occasion where I've given an Irving quote apart from in this thread. Go on!
> > >You
> > >like research! Go and find another example of me giving an Irving quote. You
> > >won't. You know why not? 'Cos I just started reading his book a couple of
> > >weeks
> > >ago, and I only quoted it because one passage seemed very relevant.
> >

Pffftttt. The troll is wiped out.

--
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

[Gord McFee]

In <36D406F8...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:04:41
+0000, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

> Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, David wrote:
> > > Mike Curtis wrote:
> > [...]

> > > God! You still haven't learned your lesson. You tell us you're a historian. I
> > > then give you a simple test and ask you who General Jaruzelski was.
> >

> > Wasn't he the Polnish president in the 80's? (From the top of my head)
> >

> > > You can't answer. Then you say it is 'not your field'. Later you claim

> > > that your field is Belsen. So I ask you a simple Belsen question. You
> > > can't answer -- you just snip the question. But you still wander around
> > > with your nose in the air, post after post, speculating on what your
> > > OPPONENT's don't know about history!
> >

> > Anyway, you see - this is exactly what Mike Curtis, Mark Van Alstine, John
> > Morris and my humble self are talking about. You mistake history for a
> > catalogue of trivia
>
> Here we go again, attributing to me views that I do not hold. History is not a
> catalogue of trivia. It is concerned with the interpretation of purported past
> events.

Nope. Wrong from the get-go, you are hereby dismissed and ordered to
stay away until you have read Gibbon.

[deleted]

[Gord McFee]

In <36d60230...@news.sig.net>, on Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:57:26 GMT,
mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:

> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> David caught with his pants down goes into attack dog mode. Should
> anyone be surprised.

No. He is happy as hell because he has sucked another few people into a
pointless flamewar, which is his only goal here. You have whipped his
butt 5 times in this thread alone, but he will keep coming back,
sneering, distorting and cutting, as long as it engenders responses.

[Gord McFee]

In <36D36C0F...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:03:44

+0000, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

> OK.
>
> You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
> get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
> expose you and your kind once and for all.

Oh God, the troll goes into Bellinger mode. Nasty Nele,
nassstttyyyy........ Arghhh................

[delete 509 lines of troll vomit]

[Gord McFee]

In <36D36C0F...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:03:44
+0000, David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

> You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
> get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
> expose you and your kind once and for all.
>

> I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
> expose you for the liar that you are.
>

> > On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, David wrote:
> > [...]
> > > A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
> > > forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
> > > 'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
> > > Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
> > > hypotheses.
> >
> > Let's see. One of the hypotheses of the recent research on the Holocaust
> > is that part of the leading staff in the WVHA (you know what the WVHA was,
> > do you David?) tried to drive the concentration camp system in
> > economically more efficient regions, resulting in a slave economy - the
> > genocide was contraproductive in this case. Thus, it was argued by Goetz
> > Aly and Susanne Heim, a rivalry was build up between the ideologically
> > more "fundamentalist" managers in the RSSH and the WVHA.
> >
> > Would you call this a refutable hypothesis?
>
> Nope.
>
> > If no, why not?
>

> Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how bad
> your English is?

If you didn't understand it, yours is beyond hope. Of course, you
haven't a clue what the WVHA is, and you didn't challenge the RSSH,
which any third-rate historian would have done.

> > This is what
> > people discuss about the Holocaust nowadays.
>
> People also discuss how much of it is a lot of nonsense.
>

> > Admittedly, it has very
> > little to do with the caricature of the discussion which you find at Codoh
> > etc.
>
> At CODOH they write in English. I hardly think they can be blamed if yours is
> too poor to enable you to comprehend them.

He understands English very well. You seem to have a lot of trouble.
Was your doctorate (assuming you really have one) in wanking?

[500+ lines of additional troll vomit deleted]

[Gord McFee]

In
<Pine.LNX.3.96.990224...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
on 24 Feb 1999 15:54:17 GMT, Nele Abels-Ludwig
<Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

> >OK.
>
> >You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
> >get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
> >expose you and your kind once and for all.
>
> Gosh. You mean we should step outside and handle this like real men? :)
>
> >I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
> >expose you for the liar that you are.
>
> You know, David, you have that strange habit of always calling people
> "liar" when you are cornered. You have done it so often that I somehow
> can't take you seriously. Your little outbreak is at best mildly amusing.
>
> Anyway. John Morris was so kind to answer already most of the "points"
> you have made, saying more or less what I would have liked to say. Thus it
> will be sufficient for me to throw in a remark or two. I will leave the
> merit of being repetitive to the "revisionist scholars".
>
> [I mention a thesis put forward in current historical discussion. Is it
> a refutable hypothesis? If no, why not? David answers:]
>
> >Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
> >bad your English is?
>
> Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
> am *really* impressed :)

He's just trolling. He just wishes his English was as good as yours.

> Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
> wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
> schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
> auszutauschen. Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
> klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
> Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden. Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
> entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?

Na, das geht nicht, weil du veilleicht nicht bemerkt hast, der kleine
David ist dem *Englischen* nicht mächtig.

> Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
> speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
> am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
> dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".

You can't dumb it down enough for him because you depart from the
mistaken assumption that he actually wants to discuss anything. That of
course is not the case.

[deleted]

[John Morris]

In
<Pine.LNX.3.96.990224...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
on 24 Feb 1999 15:54:17 GMT, Nele Abels-Ludwig
<Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

[snip]

>[I mention a thesis put forward in current historical discussion. Is it
>a refutable hypothesis? If no, why not? David answers:]

>>Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
>>bad your English is?

>Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
>am *really* impressed :) Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
>wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
>schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
>auszutauschen.

It is even harder when we don't have a common theoretical vocabulary
in English in this newsgroup.

> Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
>klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
>Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden.

He would be happy with any distraction from the topic at hand.

> Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
>entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?

It is only fair.

>Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
>speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
>am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
>dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".

>[...]
>>The notion that criticism of a position is 'not scholarship' is
>>interesting. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'scholarship'.

>*Yawn* Misquotations, misrepresentations as usual. I did not say that
>criticism is not scholarly, I have said that the deniers' way of criticism
>is not scholarly, even more, deliberately unprofessional.

>>However, I am not interested in Establishment 'scholarship'. I am
>>interested in Establishment lies and hypocrisy.

>You mean, you look at the documentary evidence on the premise that an
>assumed hypocritical "establishment" lies and forges? That's admittedly a
>sound method to find the historical truth :)

It also implies that historical scholarship is practically impossible.
Imagine trying to discuss the English Civil War starting with the
presumption that all records of it are the victors' lies.

[snip]

>>Nele, 'stated the unasserted assumption' is completely meaningless in
>>English. I suspect it is equally meaningless in German!

>Well, I tried to say "stellt die unbegruendete Behauptung" auf. Certainly
>you will give me a better translation :)

Ah. "Unbegruendete": "unfounded"; "groundless"; perhaps, "unproven."

>>> that there was a
>>> forgery-conspiracy, the conclusion is allowed that some NS-documents
>>> could have been forged? You are not serious about that, are you? :)

>>I really don't know because your attempt to misrepresent me was in such
>>bad English that, at this time in the morning, it reads rather like
>>Swahili when spoken with a Serbo-Croat accent.

>Ah, a nearly imaginative excuse for not telling me what exactly I should
>have misrepresented. But that's the difference between the two of us.
>When I point out that you have misrepresented me, I always show why. You
>simply claim to be misrepresented and say nothing more. It's open to the
>"gentle lurker" to draw his conclusions :)

It is very strange that he claims not to understand you, yet he is
certain you are misrepresenting him.

[snip]

>>> This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had
>>> spent so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of
>>> these incriminating documents?

>>He found what he was looking for -- the plates of the Goebbels diaries.
>>They won't let us near many of the archives.

>Strange. In one sentence you say that David Irving spends time in archives
>and finds what he is looking for. In the next you say that "they" (whoever
>that may be) keep people like Irving away from archives so that
>"revisionists" are not able to find what they are looking for!?! :)

Perhaps that is why he cannot find the mutually exclusive factual
claims in Ney's essay on the Wannsee Protocol.

>Or are you implying that there are some "secret archives" in which the
>incriminating stuff is collected? My, you know little about archives...

>>> How comes that Faurisson worked ardently in an
>>> archive with the INTENTION of disproving the Holocaust but came to the
>>> conclusion that "revisionism" is a hoax?

>>That's news to me. Evidence? Or is that another lie?

>Ah, you haven't read "Denying the Holocaust" and "The crematories of
>Auschwitz". Yet you would talk about these books. Strange thing...

>[No document which speaks against the Holocaust?]

>>Not the case. I've posted a whole bunch of examples. In threads in which
>>you have attempted to contribute! Why are you telling lies?

>Well, perhaps I have overlooked them. Till now, I have only seen
>"revisionist" claims. I still have to see the first authentic "document".
>Ah, my English leaves me, but since you know so much about languages you
>will able to follow me anyway.

This is rather a crucial point against Revisionism that I will take up
below. Basically, Revisionists are unable to produce any *positive*
evidence to indicate that historians have been wrong about the
Holocaust.

>Weil das jetzt wieder etwas abstrakt wird: Sie kennen doch den Unterschied
>zwischen Quellen und Darstellungen, nicht wahr? Die "Revisionisten"
>liefern nur Darstellungen ohne die entsprechenden Quellen - oder sie
>faelschen sich was zusammen.

>Isn't it so?

I doubt whether he has the capacity to agree. His use of
representations is iconic (z.B. ist ein Versuch nicht eine Nachricht
oder ein Kunstprodukt, das Informationen enthält, aber es ist ein
Zeichen der Wahrheit). Consider, for instance, his proof that forged
documents were entered at Nuremberg to prove the Katyn allegations. He
could not have read the CODOH essay which he cited, since the first
paragraph indicated that the Soviets entered no documents at all into
evidence. This suggests an even greater distance from sources.

[snip]

>>4. 'no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
>>Holocaust' -- that one is so funny! (Refutation: go to the CODOH website
>>for numerous documents that Nele has evidently never seen, or has seen
>>and is simply telling lies about them.)

>Tell me one - one real, authentic NS-document disproving the Holocaust.
>Perhaps it's my own fault, but I find nothing at Codoh. Enlighten me. (And
>please don't offer me documents which would prove the Holocaust "if they
>weren't forged.")

This is rather a crucial point against Revisionism. The only evidence
which they are able to rally against the Holocaust is supposedly
forged documents. But this is strictly negative evidence, and it
cannot tell us anything. For instance, there is no doubt that the
Wannsee Conference happened. Everyone who testified about it agrees
that the meeting took place. But, if the Wannsee Protocol were proved
a forgery, then we would know nothing about what was discussed there.
For all we could know, they discussed agricultural policy and not the
final solution to the Jewish problem.

But where is the real minutes of the meeting? Surely we are not to
believe that the undersecretaries of several government ministries got
together for a meeting and didn't take minutes. Everyone who testified
about the meeting said they discussed the solution to the Jewish
problem. But what did they say? Where is the record of what they
discussed?

More broadly, in the tens of thousands of documents captured at the
end of the war, where is the evidence that anything other than
genocide occurred? Where is the positive evidence?

Revisionists have so far not claimed that tens of thousands of
documents were *destroyed* by the Allies. So where is the evidence
that something other than genocide occurred? Where are the transport
records showing that Jews taken from Westerbork to Auschwitz and
Treblinka were sent on to the Pripyat Marshes? Where are the materiel
requisitions showing that reserves and settlements were established
for deported Jews? Where are the records of the Reich Foreign Office
negotiations through the Swiss to have the Soviets allow hundreds of
thousands of Polish Jewish refugees to cross the Eastern Front? Are we
to believe that during the fifty plus years since the end of the war
not one German or Swiss civil servant remembers those negotiations?
Where are the Soviet records showing that Jews were exempted from the
Soviet blockade of refugees at the Ukrainian-Russian frontier in the
first six weeks of the invasion of the USSR?

It is all well and good to say that the Wannsee Conference happened,
but we don't know what they said about Jews, but that is a far cry
from saying we know for certain that they did not discuss
extermination.

Does David understand yet what would be necessary to prove that
Holocaust never happened?

--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

[William Daffer]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:

> OK.
>
> You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously
> anxious to get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has
> come to respond and to expose you and your kind once and for all.
>

Jesus, David. Considering all you claims that you're being attacked
with -ad hominem_ do you expect us to take you seriously when you
start out like this?!

I've just watched you attack Mike Curtis, John Morris and
PhilNancy. You've just lost any hope of ever defending yourself
against the 'attack-dog' charge. You are a troll beyond compare.

> I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
> expose you for the liar that you are.
>

> > On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, David wrote:
> > [...]
> > > A more subtle version of the argument is that the existence of these
> > > forgeries does not 'refute' the Holocaust. This is correct. It doesn't.
> > > 'The Holocaust' is a self-verifying system of thought, rather like
> > > Marxism or Freudianism or Christianity. It does not generate refutable
> > > hypotheses.
> >
> > Let's see. One of the hypotheses of the recent research on the Holocaust
> > is that part of the leading staff in the WVHA (you know what the WVHA was,
> > do you David?) tried to drive the concentration camp system in
> > economically more efficient regions, resulting in a slave economy - the
> > genocide was contraproductive in this case. Thus, it was argued by Goetz
> > Aly and Susanne Heim, a rivalry was build up between the ideologically
> > more "fundamentalist" managers in the RSSH and the WVHA.
> >
> > Would you call this a refutable hypothesis?
>
> Nope.
>
> > If no, why not?
>

> Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how bad
> your English is?
>

Well, I understood it. Perhaps it's your English that wants
work. But it's more likely, I suspect, that Nele has presented you
with a falsifiable hypothesis about the Holocaust, something you
claim doesn't exist, and you therefore can't agree with him. So, you
deride his English instead. And we should take you seriously as a
'pursuer after truth' exactly why?

> > This is what
> > people discuss about the Holocaust nowadays.
>
> People also discuss how much of it is a lot of nonsense.
>

Only in your bedroom, inside your computer.

> > Admittedly, it has very
> > little to do with the caricature of the discussion which you find at Codoh
> > etc.
> >
>
> At CODOH they write in English. I hardly think they can be blamed if yours is
> too poor to enable you to comprehend them.
>

Again, we should take you seriously, why?...

> > > If we could show that every document produced at Nuremberg
> > > and every other Holocaust trial in history was forged or false, this
> > > would not 'refute' the Holocaust.
> >
> > That is because historiography doesn't work in negation (as John Morris
> > patiently tries to explain to you.)
>
> What the f*** is that supposed to mean?
>

Why not ask him? Oh, yeah, I forgot. You don't want to know. But I
think, given what he's said on this thread and others, and give what
John Morris has written, he's saying that you can't do history
without proposing alternative histories.

> > You see, that's one of the principles
> > of the trade:
>
> What is one of the principles of what trade? Your English is too poor to
> comprehend here.
>

No, I think the fault lies with you, sir.

> > you need a working hypothesis which can be discussed and
> > perhaps take the place of the old and refuted hypothesis,
>
> Why?
>

Well, we know you won't agree, but because you would, otherwise, be
only doing history in 'negation' like Nele and John said

> > you need to say
> > "This is my opinion on what has happened."
>
> Why?
>

Because.

> > What "revisionist scholars" are
> > doing on the other hand is to say: "Naaaah, it didn't happen at all. What
> > did happen then? How should we know, it's not our business to give
> > alternatives." That's not scholarship, that's a joke. A sad joke.
> >
>
> Ah right. You are banging the same tub as Morris and Curtis. Funny
> how you all make the same daft points together.

>
> The notion that criticism of a position is 'not scholarship' is
> interesting. I suppose it depends on what you mean by

> 'scholarship'. However, I am not interested in Establishment

> 'scholarship'. I am interested in Establishment lies and hypocrisy.
>

No, we suspect more. We suspect that you don't want to provide
alternate hypothese because then you'd actually have to do some
work, like showing where the 6 million Jews went, why there are all
these deportation documents and transport records of Jews showing up
at Auschwitz and then disapearing, why there are requisitions for
Zyclon B, work details of hundreds of stokers in the crematoria and
the thousands of other mundane documents that show that something
horrific was happening at Auschwitz and the other camps. So long as
you can *only* critize, and then only one or two documents that you
consider sufficiently important, you don't have to work, but once
you have to propose alternative explanations, well then the jig
would, most definately, be up.

> > > The value of work on forgeries and falsifications, which I regard as one
> > > of the most important tasks of the revisionist movement, is not to
> > > 'refute' the Holocaust. It is fourfold:
> > >
> > > (a) It answers the challenge (made, for instance, by Madrev) that we
> > > have 'not a scrap' of evidence that documents were forged by those
> > > fighting against National Socialism.

> >
> > Yes, but you do not succeed in proving any forgeries.
>
> Duh! So you believe the Hitler Diaries are genuine? Eh?
>
> So you are a liar.
>

Boy, you don't fail to trot this one out! As John Morris has asked,
would you care to present your *first* argument as to why we should
consider these forgeries important? And we're supposed to take you
seriously why...

> > (Don't tell me, as
> > Joe Bellinger tries to do, that this evidence cannot be produced because
> > them Jooos have more money.)

>
> No. It has been produced. I posted tons of it. You're just not honest enough
> to admit it.
>

Oh, we've all been honest. We just don't see with your *believer's* eyes.
I once asked you about your one sided scepticism. I'll ask you
again. Did you find the two internal contradictions in Ney's article
about the Wannsee protocol?

Thought not.

Have you read the whole document, when you weren't in 'gotta find
more documents to post to the newsgroup so it looks like I'm
pursuing truth' mode?

Thought not.

> > Ironically, the only forgery relevant to the
> > issue is a production of "revisionist scholarship"....
> >

> > > (b) It shows that the falsification of documents is, in fact, an
> > > important feature of the anti-Nazi movement.
> >
> > This could be shown if actually a forgery could be proven. But
> > "revisionist scholarship" just doesn't succeed in doing so. Why is that?
> >
>
> Let me guess. Because people like you will even claim the Hitler
> Diaries to be genuine! Tell me, do you believe in Santa Claus too?
>

Let me guess, people like you will even claim, despite all evidence
to the contrary, that people like us do, in fact, care whether the
Hitler Diaries are or not. Would you like to present your *first*
argument as to why they should be considered so, aside for your
rather desperate, and pathetic, desire that they be so?

Gee, Dave, this is fun. Do you wonder why Gord, and now myself,
consider you nothing but a troll. And not a very good one at that?

> > Again because they follow a methodologically unsound method: they argue in
> > negation instead of producing a falsifiable hypothesis.
>
> If you are going to try to tell me that producing a falsifiable hypothesis is
> 'sound method' in history, I am going to make mincemeat of you in this
> newsgroup and then I am going to squash the mincemeat.
>
> I assume you have not yet read up on the LIMITATIONS of positivism?
>

Take it to alt.philosophy.epistemology.of.the.holocaust. And
falsifiablility was the desideratum of Popper's method. He was
decidedly anti postivist.

Or, in a the more direct manner I learned while working construction.

I toss a quarter to David.

Me: "Here Dave, go call someone who gives a fuck"

> > To prove the
> > conspiracy which is implied by your point (a concerted forgery plot), it
> > is not sufficient to specualte whilst floating in the air.
>
> What the f*** are you talking about? (Sorry, but it is 02h03 and I
> have better things to do than wade through this . . .)
>

I think that rather poetical, and very apt. Reminds me of the
beginning of Aristophanes _The Clouds_, with you in the role of
'Socrates'.

> > The
> > "revisionists" should go and find some shred of evidence for this implied
> > conspiracy.
>
> We do. You then say we haven't and add that what we've found is irrelevant.
>

Should we say you have simply because you again and again trot out
the same canards? You do have a loose definition of truth.

> > And this is what "Madrev" actually meant. There is not a shred
> > of evidence for the obvious and logical consequences of the "revisionist"
> > implication. A matter of common sense, nothing more.
> >
>
> No, a matter of faith on your part.
>

= neener neener. You've done it, David. You've finally made it to
Joe Bellinger status.

Hey Joe, you can retire!

> > > (c) Points (a) and (b) give us good reason to doubt the documents that
> > > are cited as evidence against the Nazis, particularly where those
> > > documents are unauthenticated, could easily have been forged,

> >
> > Wait a moment. Now you are trying to argue that because "revisionist
> > scholars" put forward the hypothesis that some documents were forged and
> > because you have stated the unasserted assumption
>

> Nele, 'stated the unasserted assumption' is completely meaningless
> in English. I suspect it is equally meaningless in German!
>

Why don't you wait until he finishes his sentence, David? Why are
you being such a schmuck? Besides, given that english is his second
language, I think he's doing remarkably well. Far better than I
would in German.

> > that there was a
> > forgery-conspiracy, the conclusion is allowed that some NS-documents could
> > have been forged? You are not serious about that, are you? :)
> >
>
> I really don't know because your attempt to misrepresent me was in
> such bad English that, at this time in the morning, it reads rather
> like Swahili when spoken with a Serbo-Croat accent.
>

It's true, I find this sentence a bit hard. But then, you've won
yourself no 'serious scholar' points in your rejoinder.

> > Anyway, the intention of the researcher has of course no influence on the
> > past events.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > That "revisionist scholars" vainly try to meet a challenge
> > does in no way influence the propability of forgeries between 1939 and
> > 1945 (or later).
>
> More bad English. What on earth does that mean?

>
> > This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
> > against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes to
> > my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.
> >
>
> I'm not even going to try to guess that one.
>

It means that revisionists play word games instead of doing history.

> >
> > > or are locked away in archives where revisionists (and others) are
> > > denied access.
> >

> > This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had spent
> > so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of these
> > incriminating documents?
>
> He found what he was looking for -- the plates of the Goebbels diaries. They
> won't let us near many of the archives.
>

Librarys and archives are frequently closed to the public, David, as
has been pointed out to you many times. It's not some *big bad*
conspriracy to keep the truth from coming out, except in the minds
of small minded folk.

> > How comes that Faurisson worked ardently in an
> > archive with the INTENTION of disproving the Holocaust but came to the
> > conclusion that "revisionism" is a hoax?
>
> That's news to me. Evidence? Or is that another lie?
>

> > Apart from the "Lachout"-forgery

> > no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the

> > Holocaust. And this in spite of decades of "revisionist scholarship"!

> >
>
> Not the case. I've posted a whole bunch of examples. In threads in which you
> have attempted to contribute! Why are you telling lies?
>

You've posted a whole bunch of *canards* David. And well known ones
at that.

And why are you calling Nele's remarks 'lies'?

By the way, did you find those two contradictions I mentioned in the
Ney article?

> > > We can quite fairly claim that, in the light of the fact that
> > > fabrications and forgeries are floating around, we cannot simply assume
> > > that all documents are true.
> >
> > Neither can we assume that the documents which we do not like are false.
> >
>
> Correct.
>
> > > There is cause for 'reasonable doubt' unless an argument can be made
> > > that neutralizes such doubt.
>
> >
> > Again, an argument in negation,
>
> Nope. It is a simple observation. There is cause for reasonable
> doubt about the authenticity of at least some documents. Indeed, we
> might question whether many of them would even get through the door
> of a British criminal court.
>

No, this is not true. The fact the you can form a 'doubt' in your
mind, and that that doubt does not involve you in a logical
inconsistency, is *not* sufficient reason for asserting that
doubt. It becomes sufficient when you can provide a *reason* for
that doubt. So far, the only thing you've done is argue that you get
to doubt it because you want to.

In any case, even if there were reason to doubt *some* of the
documents, whether your continued doubt about the rest was
*reasonable* would rest entirely upon whether the doubtful documents
would cast *reasonable* doubt on the remaining 12 tons of
documents.

So far, you haven't even cast doubt on the few you've proposed. Much
less shown the reasonableness of the conclusion that the rest should
be doubted because the few you've found are.

> > the standard "revisionist" routine. It is
> > the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.
>
> Well on that you are absolutely wrong. Try reading some revisionist
> material and then come back and tell us the real revisionist point.
>

> Or was it just another lie?
>

I have yet to see a revisionist argue otherwise.

> > It is the
> > "revisionist" point that a conspiracy existed (or exists) which massively
> > forges document.
>

> Rubbish. Again, you are misrepresenting us. And doing so in very bad
> English.
>

David, you're making this very point! How could you say that he's
misrepresenting you? You want to doubt many of the documents aduced
as proof of the Holocaust because you've found several you think are
forgeries. Unless your making the banal point that a few documents
have been forged, and you are not drawing the further conclusion
that this fact allows you to doubt the remainder, Nele has correctly
stated your position.

> > It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't
> > like is forged.
>

> And it is this revisionist's point that Nele has now drifted off into a
> fantasy.
>

Well, this reader agrees with Nele.

> > And now the "revisionists" may lean back and say "Come on,
> > do the work and neutralize my doubts".
> >
>
> Now the revisionist leans back and falls off of his chair in
> amazement at the capacity of his opponents to indulge in smearing,
> misrepressentation and sheer fabrication.
>

What, no carping against Nele's English?

> But let us challenge you on this.
>
> Can you find an example of a revisionist saying 'any document I
> don't like is forged'?
>
> No? Then are you prepared to apologise for that lie?
>
> My challenge to you is simply this. Back up that drivel with evidence, or
> admit you lied and apologize.
>

Don't be obtuse, David.

> > On the other hand, "revisionists" cry red murder when someone actually
> > does the work to point out "revisionist" forgeries or their
> > misrepresentation of academic literature and historical sources. These are
> > then ad hominem attacks. A bit hypocritical, isn't it?
> >
>
> Give me an example and I'll look at it. So far all I've seen from
> you is fantasy. You have an image of revisionism in your mind and
> you are projecting it onto us. You do not appear to have any
> interest in whether the image is a distorted one.
>

I suspect he's refering to the Lachout document. You can go check
with Joe. He's currently arguing the rather interesting proposition
that the supposed 'inconsistencies' he finds in the Nizkor site
somehow *cancel* the inconsistencies in Lachout's biography. Since
Joe doesn't understand the notion of 'consistency' it makes for
interesting reading.

As far as the _ad hominem_, I suggest you reread your responses to
Nele in this thread.

Oh, and before you go off on me, just know that I know I'm engaging
in _ad hominem_. I don't care. I've decided that's all you're good
for.

> > > (d) It highlights the fact that the Second World War was not a case of
> > > 'good and truthful' versus 'bad and dishonest'. There was goodness and
> > > badness, truthfulness and dishonesty on both sides.
> >
> > Go and tell that Joe Bellinger. :) This isn't the object of the discussion
> > of the Holocaust anyway.
> >
>
> Yes it is. It is the absolute essence of the discussion.
>

No it isn't. It might make an interesting side discussion, but it
isn't seminal here, howsoever much you'd like it to be.

> > > Understandably, a major thrust of the anti-revisionist posters has been,
> > > rather than attacking the arguments, to attack me personally.
> >
> > Perhaps not all of your debating opponents are as patient as John Morris.
> >
>
> Have you seen some of his latest posts? He's descending into the sort of
> language you provoke from me!
>

Yes, I hate it when people provoke language from me. I just can't
control myself!

> > Most people tend to get rather irritated when they realize that someone is
> > taking the piss on them. (How do you say "verarscht" in English?)
>
> Taking the piss out of them.
>
> > Perhaps
> > most people are not ready to believe that someone could actually be so
> > thickheaded as not to see the glaring flaws in the "revisionist"
> > argumentation. (We may safely exlude Joe Bellinger here - he is too
> > thickheaded.) You don't even need to have specialist knowledge to realise
> > this.
> >
> > Just lean back in your favourite armchair, have a nice cup of tea and
> > quietly apply some common sense. When I do this over a "revisionst" paper,
> > the result normally is that my flat mate comes in and asks curiously for
> > the reason of my laughing fits...
> >
>
> Possibly you forgot to take your schizophrenia pill with your cup of
> tea?
>

Well, that does it. This post is going straight to the archive. The
next 'no one is taking me seriously' whine from you and it comes
right back out again, mister 'I'm on a search for the truth'

> > > One line taken is the outright lie that I obtain all my information
> > > from CODOH. Now this is false. I get a lot of material from CODOH
> > > because it is one of the best revisionist sources available, but I do
> > > peruse other sources -- even Nizkor.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that. My main source in my work on Holocaust-denial is
> > undoubtatly Codoh.
>
> Pity you didn't try actually reading it before attributing views to
> revisionists that we don't hold!
>

I suspect those words will haunt you. By the way, did you find the
two contradictions in the Ney article I mentioned?

> > But this is not the point here. The point is that you
> > are using ONLY Codoh (or other "Revisionist" material) when you speak
> > about history.
>
> Duh! Did you even read what I wrote?
>
> Another challenge for you. Are you prepared to admit that you are telling
> another lie here and apologize? Or do I have to make you look a complete ass
> by proving you wrong?

>
> > (Nizkor doesn't really count because it's main intent is
> > the refute of Holocaust-denial. It gives only a narrow view on the history
> > of the 3rd Reich.)
>
> Nele, you are talking absolute goose droppings.
>

> > Because you fail to have a look at the historical
> > debates on that time, you fail to see history as what it is - a dynamic
> > web of contradictory interests and actions and you fail to see
> > historiography at what it is - a dynamic exchange of attempts to determine
> > what has happened. The result of your failure is this:
> >
> > > Further instances of forgeries came to my attention at about 04h30 this
> > > morning as I was doing a little bedtime reading through Irving's
> > > *Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich*. Let me quote some examples.
> > >
> > > Writing of the period after November 1933, he says:
> > >
> > > <begin quote>
> > > A campaign of anti-Nazi Big Lies began -- many of them uncomfortably
> > > close to the truth. In London, the *Saturday Review* published a forged
> > > article, attributed to Goebbels, demanding the revision of the east
> > > German border at Poland's expense. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: The forged
> > > article was entitled 'Germany's Aim: She Wants More Territory.' See NYT,
> > > Nov 18, 19, 22, 1933] In France, the *Petit Parisien reproduced
> > > instructions which Goebbels had allegedly issued to his propaganda
> > > offices overseas, backing up these territorial claims; these too were a
> > > forgery. [FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: NYT, Nov 18, 1933]
> > > <end quote>
> > >
> > > Irving D (1996) Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich. London: Focal
> > > Point, p. 176.
> > >
> > > Irving goes on to mention the 'Brown Book of the Hitler Terror' (which
> > > claims, inter alia, that Dr Ernst Oberfohren, a DNVP politician, was a
> > > victim of a murder organized by Goebbels when he had actually taken his
> > > own life). (There is a footnote reference to Goebbels's Diary, 8 May
> > > 1933 on this.) This document also propounds the Reichstag Fire lie.
> >
> > You see, you just did it again: you took up ONLY the literature of a
> > "revisionist" author because your intention was not to see what actually
> > was, but to find a confirmation that the German government at that time
> > wasnt't at all that bad.
>
> Look, how do you know what I have read. This month, I concede, I have been
> reading Irving. Do you know what I was reading last month? Let me tell you.
> Kershaw. Now is he a revisionist author? Do you know what I was reading the
> month before? Come on! Take a guess! Produce some more lies while you are
> entertaining us!
>
> So that's another lie.
>

Very well, you *quote* only 'revisionist' literature. Happy now?

> > And because of this, your view is narrowed.

>
> My view is narrowed because I have to spend so much time dealing with
> out-and-out liars like you, sir.
>

> > Perhaps the British article included a forged Goebbels speech.
>
> Come on! Did it or did it not? You've read all these non-revisionist books!
> Tell us!
>

Shouldn't you know that answer to this question?

> > The
> > logically next question you would have had to ask would be, "Well how does
> > this relate to the the statements of other Nazi-Leaders?" And you would
> > start to look for cross-references. After a short while, you would have
> > found out that revisionist (this time without quotation marks) demands
> > were not uncommon in Germany at that time - Hitler did mention this in
> > many speeches, as did other politicians, even in the SPD or the Zentrum.
> > You would have found out that Germany actually lost some (not many)
> > territories to Poland. You could have asked yourself "Well were the
> > British journalists talking about this?" and you could have tried to find
> > out whether this really was a revisionist policy or whether this was
> > already the Lebensraum-claim. Perhaps you would even have come to the
> > conclusion that Irving is right and that the journalists were seeing an
> > aggressive imperialism where (at least with Goebbels) only was a
> > conventional revisionism. Some historians argue thus.
> >
>
> It looks to me as if you are arguing that journalists were justified in
> attributing utterances to Goebbels that he never uttered because they felt
> that he probably would have uttered them. Sounds as if you're seriously into
> attributing views and utterances to people.
>

Except that your quote remarks of "A campaign of anti-Nazi Big Lies
began -- many of them uncomfortably close to the truth. "

The counterpoint of 'big lie' and 'uncomfortably close to the truth'
is a bit poignant, no?

> > But no, because you do not read anything apart from "revisionist
> > literature" you must fail to see all these implications.
>
> May I ask you how you come to know what I read? Are you psychic? Or are you
> just a dirty little smearer and liar?
>

Well, it's true. But at least you don't quote much beyond your
revisionists site. Perhaps if you quoted more, and discussed more of
them, we'd be more forgiving. But, as Philnancy has shown
presuasively, you don't seem to have much truck with non-revisionist
sites.

> > You simply have
> > to *rely* on David Irving and you willingly rely on him because he tells
> > you what you want to hear.
>
> And you just have to smear and lie because it is all you are capable of.
>

Again, I haven't seen many non-revisionist quotes from you. Care to
point them out?

> > And this has pretty damn little of a "great
> > intellectual adventure". And now (because, contrary to your claims above,
> > you adamantaly belief in "good and bad" in history) you are expecting a
> > riot:
> >
>
> Reading your lies is a riot in itself!
>

Oh, I think Nele has you pegged.

> > > Heh! I can already hear the howls of outrage from the anti-revisionists.
> > > I can see the posts already!
> >
> > But these posts don't come because it is not at all the point to refute
> > Irving. What is important is to get the picture.
>
> I get it clearly, Nele. You are just another liar and smearer.
>

You don't like someone saying you rely on revisionist sites for your
information? Why?

> > You see, it's that old
> > positive and negative thingy again.

> >
>
> God alone knows what that is supposed to mean. Don't they teach English in
> Germany, or Albania, or wherever you come from?

Do they teach you manners where you come from? As we used to say
where I grew up, 'you kiss yo' momma with that mouth?'

>
> > [Some prophesies which did not come true.]
> >
> > > But the discerning reader will note that the basic point I'm making
> > > remains.

> > >
> > > You cannot trust 'the documents' that 'prove' the Establishment view of

> > > World War II.

> >
> > With this little sentence you declare that historiography is impossible.
> >
>

> Readers, just look at that example of misrepresentation. That is typical of
> what we revisionists must put up with. I say that we cannot trust
> Establishment documents relating to World War II because a lot of them have
> been falsified. He tells the world that I am declaring historiography to be
> impossible! I am speechless.
>

And readers, go up a few sentences and find out how revisionists
argue.

> > "The great intellectual adventure of the 20th century" really is
> > flabbergasting... As if we could chose our favourite history...

> >
> > Nele
> > --
> > Et, au resvail, quant le ventre luy bruit,
> > Monte sur moy, que ne gaste son fruit.
> > Soubz elle geins, plus qu'un aiz me fait plat;
> > De paillarder tout elle me destruit,
> > En ce bordeau out tenans nostre estat.
> > (Ballade de Villon de la Grosse Margot)
>

> Now let us summarize Nele's lies:

>
> 1. We have not succeeded in proving any forgeries. (Refutations: Hitler

> diaries, Demjanjuk identity card, numerous photographs mentioned on the CODOH
> cite, etc. etc.)
>

Not relavent, maybe but even if so not very important, no, no, etc etc etc.

> 2. Such evidence has not been produced. (Refutation: do a Deja News search on
> me over the past couple of months. I've cited masses of the stuff.)
>

All from revisionists sites and David Irving, thereby showing the
truth of Nele's claim that you rely exclusively on these sources and
giving the lie to your counter claim that he was lying when he so
asserted.

> 3. Producing falsifiable hypotheses is 'sound methodology' in history.
> (Refutation: read any decent book on the philosophy of the social sciences
> published since 1975.)
>

In short, I can't argue it, so I'll fob the reader off.

> 4. 'no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
> Holocaust' -- that one is so funny! (Refutation: go to the CODOH website for
> numerous documents that Nele has evidently never seen, or has seen and is
> simply telling lies about them.)
>

Again, the reliance on the CODOH website. As if they will constitute
an impartial source! LOL!

> 5. 'It is the "revisionist" point that the Holocaust did not happen.'

> (Refutation: again, look it up on the CODOH site. It is the revisionist point

> that many Jews did die, many were maltreated, some were probably murdered. It
> is also the revisionist point that there have been numerous distortions and
> injustices in the conduct of history-making.)
>

Well, you'd better go let Joe, Alex, Andrew, and Phillips in on the secret.

> 6. 'It is the "revisionist" point that a conspiracy existed (or exists) which
> massively
> forges document.' (Refutation -- read any revisionist website to observe that
> Nele does not know what he's talking about.)
>

Nele never said it was overt, David. Now did he? Who's the liar now?

> 7. It is the "revisionist" point that any document you don't like is forged.
> (Refutation: well . . . that one's so daft I won't even bother . . .)
>

David, obtuseness may be your best friend.

> 8. 'The point is that you are using ONLY Codoh (or other "Revisionist"
> material) when you speak about history.' (Refutation: do a Deja News search on
> me. I've cited from all sorts of sources. There's a bias towards CODOH because
> they've done a lot of the sifting and it's easily accessible but I've quoted
> other historians, writers, Nizkor, other revisionist sites, other
> anti-revisionist sites . . .)
>

Well, David. I have yet to see anything other than CODOH and David
Irving. If you have cited someone else, the ratio is prodigiously
slanted towards the revisionist sites. Will you dispute that claim?

The point is, how can you say that you are seriously pursuing
knowledge in this area, that hasn't read any normative history?

> 9.'You see, you just did it again: you took up ONLY the literature of a
> "revisionist" author because your intention was not to see what actually
> was, but to find a confirmation that the German government at that time
> wasnt't at all that bad.' And later 'you do not read anything apart from
> "revisionist
> literature'. (Refutation: apart from the interesting point that Nele obviously
> does not know what I read, and is therefore obviously just smearing, how would
> I quote other things if I didn't read them?)
>

Perhaps. But if you've read it, you've been precious quiet about
it. You only *quote* revisionist literature.

> 10 When I stated that 'You cannot trust "the documents" that "prove" the
> Establishment view of World War II' Nele stated: 'With this little sentence
> you declare that historiography is impossible.' (Refutation: no such
> declaration was made or implied.)
>

Yep, Obtuseness. That's the ticket.

> Now what will Nele the Spammer do?

Better than you, for sure.

> Will he apologize like a man? Or
> will we get more lies and smears and spam from Nele the Spammer? I
> know which way I am betting!
>

I see no reason for him to. I think he's definately got your number.

> David
>

--
My mail address has been mangled by my mailer. Send replies to...
daf...@primenet.com

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.

[David]

Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.3.96.990224...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>,

> Nele Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>

> > >Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
> > >bad your English is?
> >
> > Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
> > am *really* impressed :) Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
> > wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
> > schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
> > auszutauschen. Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
> > klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
> > Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden. Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
> > entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?
>

> ROTFL! DavidM ran, not walked, right into that one! Maybe he can ask
> Jew-Hating Joe, the expert-on-everything-under-the-sun (TM), to help him
> out? <snicker>

Mark, ek's seker jy weet dit nie maar jy skryf altyds kak.

> > Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
> > speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
> > am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
> > dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".
>

> Forty lashes with a wet noodle for that! And let it be a lesson too! :-)

Kinky.

> [snip]

>
> > [No evidence for forged Holocaust-documents?]
> >
> > >No. It has been produced. I posted tons of it. You're just not honest
> > >enough to admit it.
> >
> > Sure. You have posted the same unprofessional rubbish which I have already
> > read back in 1996 when I first heard about a.r. Over the last years the
> > "revisionist arguments" have been refuted again and the again. This
> > doesn't hinder deniers to post them yet another time and to stubbornly
> > ignore any counter-arguments. You are just another "revisionist scholar"
> > in a long row... They come and go, often they re-appear under yet
> > another false name to repeat their pseudo-history once again.
>

> IOW, DavidM is yet another fanatical Holocaust denier. No suprises there.

Nope. Just someone who doesn't swallow all the 'Holocaust stories' by
assuming a priori that they're true.

> > Why can't you stick your head above this rabble and *finally* try to do
> > something more productive than just cutting and pasting Codoh-rubbish?
>

> Because DavidM is a fanatical Holocaust denier?

Nope. Just a little more critical about the matter than you folks.

> BTW, for those, like DavidM, to whom a dictionary is gospel:

Not gospel. Merely a source of evidence as to the common usage of words.

> fanatical adj. motivated or characterized by an extremem, uncritical
> enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.... Syn. enthusiastic,
> zealous, frenzied, rabid. See intolerant, radical.
>
> _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Lanuage_
>
> [snip]

Evidence?

> > >> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
> > >> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes
> > >> to my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.
> >
> > >I'm not even going to try to guess that one.
> >
> > Holocaust-denial and deconstructivism look similar at the surface, Deborah
> > Lipstadt has said something on that issue, but you obviously haven't read
> > her book (see below).
>

> Keith Windschuttle also offers a damning critique of the
> postmodern/poststructuralist attack on history and how it is written.

> It is also interesting to note that Heidigger, one of the "giants" of
> postmodernist thought, was an anti-Semite, a Nazi stool pigeon in the
> 1930's, and a "financial member" of the NSDAP from 1933 to 1945. He
> believed "that his philosophy confirmed the 'inner truth and greatness' of
> the Nazi movement." (Cf. Windschuttle, _The Killing of History_, p.12.)
>
> [snip]
>
> Mark
>

I really don't think my approach can be characterized as post-modern. If
it were truly post-modern it would be harping back to the good old
empiricist ways of doing things. It explicitly rejects these in favour
of an approach that, while having its roots in Pyrrho, Empiricus, and
Nietzsche (who sort of answers them), really only came into full bloom
in the social sciences in the 1970s. The essence, when applied to social
sciences such as history, is to problematize what purport to be
statements of 'fact' and view them as telling us more about the
psychology of the person who is making the statements than about the
object of the statements.

Your approach to history is to see it in terms of a 'truth' that is to
be defended against infidels. You are interested in revelation and
enlightenment of those who are, in your view, blind or malevolent. My
approach is to see it as a battle between conflicting interpretations of
what happened.

David

[David]

John Morris wrote:
>
> In
> <Pine.LNX.3.96.990224...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
> on 24 Feb 1999 15:54:17 GMT, Nele Abels-Ludwig
> <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >[I mention a thesis put forward in current historical discussion. Is it
> >a refutable hypothesis? If no, why not? David answers:]
>
> >>Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
> >>bad your English is?
>
> >Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
> >am *really* impressed :) Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
> >wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
> >schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
> >auszutauschen.
>
> It is even harder when we don't have a common theoretical vocabulary
> in English in this newsgroup.
>
> > Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
> >klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
> >Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden.
>
> He would be happy with any distraction from the topic at hand.

Hehe! Ek het 'n goeie plan. As hy gaan Duits praat, ek gaan Afrikaans
gebruik!

> > Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
> >entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?
>
> It is only fair.

Ek verstaan hom nie as hy praat in Engels of Duits. Dis dieselfde ding
vir my!

> >Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
> >speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
> >am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
> >dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".
>
> >[...]
> >>The notion that criticism of a position is 'not scholarship' is
> >>interesting. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'scholarship'.
>
> >*Yawn* Misquotations, misrepresentations as usual. I did not say that
> >criticism is not scholarly, I have said that the deniers' way of criticism
> >is not scholarly, even more, deliberately unprofessional.
>
> >>However, I am not interested in Establishment 'scholarship'. I am
> >>interested in Establishment lies and hypocrisy.
>
> >You mean, you look at the documentary evidence on the premise that an
> >assumed hypocritical "establishment" lies and forges? That's admittedly a
> >sound method to find the historical truth :)
>
> It also implies that historical scholarship is practically impossible.
> Imagine trying to discuss the English Civil War starting with the
> presumption that all records of it are the victors' lies.

Why should we make such an assumption, Mr Morris? Or, alternatively, why
should we reject it?

> [snip]
>
> >>Nele, 'stated the unasserted assumption' is completely meaningless in
> >>English. I suspect it is equally meaningless in German!
>
> >Well, I tried to say "stellt die unbegruendete Behauptung" auf. Certainly
> >you will give me a better translation :)
>
> Ah. "Unbegruendete": "unfounded"; "groundless"; perhaps, "unproven."
>
> >>> that there was a
> >>> forgery-conspiracy, the conclusion is allowed that some NS-documents
> >>> could have been forged? You are not serious about that, are you? :)
>
> >>I really don't know because your attempt to misrepresent me was in such
> >>bad English that, at this time in the morning, it reads rather like
> >>Swahili when spoken with a Serbo-Croat accent.
>
> >Ah, a nearly imaginative excuse for not telling me what exactly I should
> >have misrepresented. But that's the difference between the two of us.
> >When I point out that you have misrepresented me, I always show why. You
> >simply claim to be misrepresented and say nothing more. It's open to the
> >"gentle lurker" to draw his conclusions :)
>
> It is very strange that he claims not to understand you, yet he is
> certain you are misrepresenting him.

Not really. The bits of his waffle that I understood were all
misrepresentations, and the bits that I didn't seemed to be in a similar
mode.

> [snip]
>
> >>> This is strange. How comes that David Irving (and some others) had
> >>> spent so remarkably much time in archives without finding any one of
> >>> these incriminating documents?
>
> >>He found what he was looking for -- the plates of the Goebbels diaries.
> >>They won't let us near many of the archives.
>
> >Strange. In one sentence you say that David Irving spends time in archives
> >and finds what he is looking for. In the next you say that "they" (whoever
> >that may be) keep people like Irving away from archives so that
> >"revisionists" are not able to find what they are looking for!?! :)
>
> Perhaps that is why he cannot find the mutually exclusive factual
> claims in Ney's essay on the Wannsee Protocol.

Haven't had time to deal with that yet.

> >Or are you implying that there are some "secret archives" in which the
> >incriminating stuff is collected? My, you know little about archives...
>
> >>> How comes that Faurisson worked ardently in an
> >>> archive with the INTENTION of disproving the Holocaust but came to the
> >>> conclusion that "revisionism" is a hoax?
>
> >>That's news to me. Evidence? Or is that another lie?
>
> >Ah, you haven't read "Denying the Holocaust" and "The crematories of
> >Auschwitz". Yet you would talk about these books. Strange thing...
>
> >[No document which speaks against the Holocaust?]
>
> >>Not the case. I've posted a whole bunch of examples. In threads in which
> >>you have attempted to contribute! Why are you telling lies?
>
> >Well, perhaps I have overlooked them. Till now, I have only seen
> >"revisionist" claims. I still have to see the first authentic "document".
> >Ah, my English leaves me, but since you know so much about languages you
> >will able to follow me anyway.
>
> This is rather a crucial point against Revisionism that I will take up
> below. Basically, Revisionists are unable to produce any *positive*
> evidence to indicate that historians have been wrong about the
> Holocaust.

Not sure what you mean by 'positive' evidence. Surely evidence that
proves someone wrong is by definition negative?

> >Weil das jetzt wieder etwas abstrakt wird: Sie kennen doch den Unterschied
> >zwischen Quellen und Darstellungen, nicht wahr? Die "Revisionisten"
> >liefern nur Darstellungen ohne die entsprechenden Quellen - oder sie
> >faelschen sich was zusammen.
>
> >Isn't it so?

> I doubt whether he has the capacity to agree. His use of
> representations is iconic (z.B. ist ein Versuch nicht eine Nachricht
> oder ein Kunstprodukt, das Informationen enthält, aber es ist ein
> Zeichen der Wahrheit). Consider, for instance, his proof that forged
> documents were entered at Nuremberg to prove the Katyn allegations. He
> could not have read the CODOH essay which he cited, since the first
> paragraph indicated that the Soviets entered no documents at all into
> evidence. This suggests an even greater distance from sources.

You still haven't looked up that dictionary citation I gave you, Mr M.

> [snip]
>
> >>4. 'no document ever has ever been put forward as evidence against the
> >>Holocaust' -- that one is so funny! (Refutation: go to the CODOH website
> >>for numerous documents that Nele has evidently never seen, or has seen
> >>and is simply telling lies about them.)
>
> >Tell me one - one real, authentic NS-document disproving the Holocaust.
> >Perhaps it's my own fault, but I find nothing at Codoh. Enlighten me. (And
> >please don't offer me documents which would prove the Holocaust "if they
> >weren't forged.")
>
> This is rather a crucial point against Revisionism.

Another one?

> The only evidence
> which they are able to rally against the Holocaust is supposedly
> forged documents.

Interesting claim. Inconsistencies? Debunked eyewitness testimonies?
Physical evidence? Impossibilities? These are all types of claims that
are made. Of course we can debate at length as to whether they actually
do the work claimed of them, but they are certainly kinds of evidence
put forward.

> But this is strictly negative evidence, and it
> cannot tell us anything.

It can refute or cast doubt on specific propositions. But it cannot 'the
Holocaust' as a whole because it is vague and can be redefined to
accommodate contrary evidence.

> For instance, there is no doubt that the
> Wannsee Conference happened. Everyone who testified about it agrees
> that the meeting took place. But, if the Wannsee Protocol were proved
> a forgery, then we would know nothing about what was discussed there.
> For all we could know, they discussed agricultural policy and not the
> final solution to the Jewish problem.

Unless you had alternative documentation from which you could infer what
was discussed there, I suppose. Which is what you'd probably end up
claiming.

> But where is the real minutes of the meeting? Surely we are not to
> believe that the undersecretaries of several government ministries got
> together for a meeting and didn't take minutes.

Well, if it was a matter that was never to be committed to writing this
is quite possible. Or, more plausibly, the minutes were destroyed. It
happens. It appears that South African Intelligence had quite a bonfire
when it became clear that Mandela was going to take over. It could also
have happened in Germany. Another scenario might be that the minutes
existed but proved that they did NOT discuss the extermination of the
Jews, and therefore they were supressed or destroyed by the Allies.

> Everyone who testified
> about the meeting said they discussed the solution to the Jewish
> problem. But what did they say? Where is the record of what they
> discussed?
>
> More broadly, in the tens of thousands of documents captured at the
> end of the war, where is the evidence that anything other than
> genocide occurred? Where is the positive evidence?

I've dealt with the general problems associated with documents
elsewhere.

> Revisionists have so far not claimed that tens of thousands of
> documents were *destroyed* by the Allies. So where is the evidence
> that something other than genocide occurred? Where are the transport
> records showing that Jews taken from Westerbork to Auschwitz and
> Treblinka were sent on to the Pripyat Marshes? Where are the materiel
> requisitions showing that reserves and settlements were established
> for deported Jews? Where are the records of the Reich Foreign Office
> negotiations through the Swiss to have the Soviets allow hundreds of
> thousands of Polish Jewish refugees to cross the Eastern Front? Are we
> to believe that during the fifty plus years since the end of the war
> not one German or Swiss civil servant remembers those negotiations?
> Where are the Soviet records showing that Jews were exempted from the
> Soviet blockade of refugees at the Ukrainian-Russian frontier in the
> first six weeks of the invasion of the USSR?

Interesting questions. It would be interesting to know what positive
evidence actually does exist for alternative scenarios. (Damn -- if only
I was 21 again, with a fat research grant and free time!)

> It is all well and good to say that the Wannsee Conference happened,
> but we don't know what they said about Jews, but that is a far cry
> from saying we know for certain that they did not discuss
> extermination.
>
> Does David understand yet what would be necessary to prove that
> Holocaust never happened?

I don't think you can prove that. I think that you can attack specific
claims, cast doubt on others, and generally wear the thing down until
you are left with a 'core' of assertions that are very difficult to
reject. That a lot of Jews died (like a lot of Germans, Russians, Japs,
etc.) is not reasonably disputable. How they died is another matter. Why
they died is another matter still. How they could have been prevented
from dying is perhaps more interesting. Perhaps the most interesting
issue is whether they would have survived had Churchill used that nasty
little surprise he was experimenting with on Gruinard -- right, Mr M?

I have a lot of problems with this term 'the Holocaust'. It is a classic
case of semantic infiltration. It lumps together and emotes a large
number of separate matters that really need to be investigated
separately. People end up arguing about whether 'the Holocaust'
happened, instead of the (much more assailable) question of 'what
happened?'

> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

David

[David]

Gord McFee wrote:
>
> In
> <Pine.LNX.3.96.990224...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
> on 24 Feb 1999 15:54:17 GMT, Nele Abels-Ludwig
> <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>

> > >OK.
> >
> > >You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
> > >get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
> > >expose you and your kind once and for all.
> >
> > Gosh. You mean we should step outside and handle this like real men? :)
> >
> > >I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
> > >expose you for the liar that you are.
> >
> > You know, David, you have that strange habit of always calling people
> > "liar" when you are cornered. You have done it so often that I somehow
> > can't take you seriously. Your little outbreak is at best mildly amusing.
> >
> > Anyway. John Morris was so kind to answer already most of the "points"
> > you have made, saying more or less what I would have liked to say. Thus it
> > will be sufficient for me to throw in a remark or two. I will leave the
> > merit of being repetitive to the "revisionist scholars".
> >
> > [I mention a thesis put forward in current historical discussion. Is it
> > a refutable hypothesis? If no, why not? David answers:]
> >
> > >Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
> > >bad your English is?
> >
> > Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
> > am *really* impressed :)
>

> He's just trolling. He just wishes his English was as good as yours.
>

> > Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
> > wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
> > schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
> > auszutauschen. Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
> > klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
> > Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden. Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
> > entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?
>

> Na, das geht nicht, weil du veilleicht nicht bemerkt hast, der kleine
> David ist dem *Englischen* nicht mächtig.
>

> > Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
> > speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
> > am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
> > dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".
>

> You can't dumb it down enough for him because you depart from the
> mistaken assumption that he actually wants to discuss anything. That of
> course is not the case.
>
> [deleted]
>
> --
> 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

I don't usually reply to Gord's little hit-and-run attacks because
they're just intended to get a response, but I can't resist this one.
Now WHEN was it that we last saw Gord contribute anything to these
debates other than spiteful, hypocritical and cowardly little
two-sentence attacks on his opponents? More lies and hypocrisy from our
senior civil servant, eh Gord?

David

[Mike Curtis]

gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>In <36d60230...@news.sig.net>, on Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:57:26 GMT,
>mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>> David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> David caught with his pants down goes into attack dog mode. Should
>> anyone be surprised.
>
>No. He is happy as hell because he has sucked another few people into a
>pointless flamewar, which is his only goal here. You have whipped his
>butt 5 times in this thread alone, but he will keep coming back,
>sneering, distorting and cutting, as long as it engenders responses.
>
>[deleted]

I keep waiting for someone good to discuss this stuff with.

Bradley Smith ran away.

Greg Raven ran away.

Butz runs away.

Weber doesn't have the guts.

David Thomas runs away. He runs away so far as to start a discussion
group that he can control content in. Funny. David Thomas isn't even
David Thomas.

Andrew Allen is here but he's clueless and unread.

Friedrich Paul Berg gets caught with his pants down and start flaming
then runs away.

We know who Samuel Crowell is and he ran off to send ghost pieces
through people like Bellinger. Basically he ran away.

I suppose I could name quite a few more. It's the same old game. Why
be totally demolished publically here when one can hide behind a web
page and control content. It's much safer than actually sticking one's
neck out.

Mike Curtis

[Mark Van Alstine]

In article <36D53F...@cableinet.co.uk>, Dav...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:

[snip]

> > IOW, DavidM is yet another fanatical Holocaust denier. No suprises there.
>
> Nope. Just someone who doesn't swallow all the 'Holocaust stories' by
> assuming a priori that they're true.

OTOH, DavidM _is_ someone who swallows denier propaganda and assumes a
priori that the Holocaust did not happen.

> > > Why can't you stick your head above this rabble and *finally* try to do
> > > something more productive than just cutting and pasting Codoh-rubbish?
> >
> > Because DavidM is a fanatical Holocaust denier?
>
> Nope. Just a little more critical about the matter than you folks.

Nope. DavidM is a fanatical Holocaust denier -as evidenced by the fact
that he swallows CODOH's denier propaganda hook, line, and sinker and then
regurgitates it.

> > BTW, for those, like DavidM, to whom a dictionary is gospel:
>
> Not gospel. Merely a source of evidence as to the common usage of words.
>
> > fanatical adj. motivated or characterized by an extremem, uncritical
> > enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.... Syn. enthusiastic,
> > zealous, frenzied, rabid. See intolerant, radical.
> >
> > _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Lanuage_
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Evidence?

It is evidenced by the fact, as has already been shown, that DavidM
swallows CODOH's denier propaganda hook, line, and sinker and then
regurgitates it.

> > > >> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
> > > >> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes
> > > >> to my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.
> > >
> > > >I'm not even going to try to guess that one.
> > >
> > > Holocaust-denial and deconstructivism look similar at the surface, Deborah
> > > Lipstadt has said something on that issue, but you obviously haven't read
> > > her book (see below).
> >
> > Keith Windschuttle also offers a damning critique of the
> > postmodern/poststructuralist attack on history and how it is written.
>
> > It is also interesting to note that Heidigger, one of the "giants" of
> > postmodernist thought, was an anti-Semite, a Nazi stool pigeon in the
> > 1930's, and a "financial member" of the NSDAP from 1933 to 1945. He
> > believed "that his philosophy confirmed the 'inner truth and greatness' of
> > the Nazi movement." (Cf. Windschuttle, _The Killing of History_, p.12.)
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Mark
> >
> I really don't think my approach can be characterized as post-modern.

What does DavidM think his "approach" is? Poststructuralist?

> If it were truly post-modern it would be harping back to the good old
> empiricist ways of doing things.

Then DavidM and I have a different understanding on what postmodernism is.
As I understand it, postmodrnism (ala Nietzsche and Heidegger) rejects the
idea that knowledge acumulates and that conclusions derived from science
or history could be made with any kind of certainty. In short,
postmoderism (more accurately described as anti-modernism) asserts that
there are no facts or objective truths, just interpretations.

Now, that sounds an awful lot like DavidM's "approach."

> It explicitly rejects these in favour
> of an approach that, while having its roots in Pyrrho, Empiricus, and
> Nietzsche (who sort of answers them),

Now that sounds like a load of bullshit. Nietzsche was a critic of
modernism -i.e. "the good old empiricist ways of doing things." One cannot
"harp back" to modernism while rejecting modernism.

> ...really only came into full bloom in the social sciences in the 1970s.

More like the 1980's.

> The essence, when applied to social
> sciences such as history, is to problematize what purport to be
> statements of 'fact' and view them as telling us more about the
> psychology of the person who is making the statements than about the
> object of the statements.

This sounds like the pop culture version of postmodernism -i.e. literary
critics using semiotics because they don't have a clue about
historiography.

> Your approach to history is to see it in terms of a 'truth' that is to

> be defended against infidels....

My approach is "the narrative presentation of history based on critical
examination, evaluation, and selection of material from primary and
secondary sources subjected to scholarly criteria." If DavidM wishes to
call himself an (intellectual) infidel because he spouts a bunch of
worthless ahistorical bullshit, well, that's fine by me.

> You are interested in revelation and
> enlightenment of those who are, in your view, blind or malevolent.

It sounded like DavidM was trying to say I'm interested in educating
people and he thinks that's bad. Hmmm, maybe DavidM is an
anti-intellectual too....

> My approach is to see it as a battle between conflicting interpretations of
> what happened.

DavidM's "approach" is simply to swallow CODOH's denier bullshit by the
bucket, spew it out, and then, while proudly pointing at his vomit, say:
"Look at me! See what an impressive 'Revisionist scholar" I am!"

[fled...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <mvanalstnot-25...@c678496-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>,

I don't think 'regurgitate' is quire the right word.

>
> > > > >> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
> > > > >> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes
> > > > >> to my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.
> > > >
> > > > >I'm not even going to try to guess that one.
> > > >
> > > > Holocaust-denial and deconstructivism look similar at the surface,
Deborah
> > > > Lipstadt has said something on that issue, but you obviously haven't
read
> > > > her book (see below).
> > >
> > > Keith Windschuttle also offers a damning critique of the
> > > postmodern/poststructuralist attack on history and how it is written.
> >
> > > It is also interesting to note that Heidigger, one of the "giants" of
> > > postmodernist thought, was an anti-Semite, a Nazi stool pigeon in the
> > > 1930's, and a "financial member" of the NSDAP from 1933 to 1945. He
> > > believed "that his philosophy confirmed the 'inner truth and greatness' of
> > > the Nazi movement." (Cf. Windschuttle, _The Killing of History_, p.12.)
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > I really don't think my approach can be characterized as post-modern.
>
> What does DavidM think his "approach" is? Poststructuralist?

Postintelligent, I suspect.

>
> > If it were truly post-modern it would be harping back to the good old
> > empiricist ways of doing things.
>
> Then DavidM and I have a different understanding on what postmodernism is.
> As I understand it, postmodrnism (ala Nietzsche and Heidegger) rejects the
> idea that knowledge acumulates and that conclusions derived from science
> or history could be made with any kind of certainty. In short,
> postmoderism (more accurately described as anti-modernism) asserts that
> there are no facts or objective truths, just interpretations.
>
> Now, that sounds an awful lot like DavidM's "approach."
>
> > It explicitly rejects these in favour
> > of an approach that, while having its roots in Pyrrho, Empiricus, and
> > Nietzsche (who sort of answers them),
>
> Now that sounds like a load of bullshit. Nietzsche was a critic of
> modernism -i.e. "the good old empiricist ways of doing things." One cannot
> "harp back" to modernism while rejecting modernism.
>
> > ...really only came into full bloom in the social sciences in the 1970s.
>
> More like the 1980's.

Definitely.

>
> > The essence, when applied to social
> > sciences such as history, is to problematize what purport to be
> > statements of 'fact' and view them as telling us more about the
> > psychology of the person who is making the statements than about the
> > object of the statements.
>
> This sounds like the pop culture version of postmodernism -i.e. literary
> critics using semiotics because they don't have a clue about
> historiography.

Definitely.

>
> > Your approach to history is to see it in terms of a 'truth' that is to
> > be defended against infidels....
>
> My approach is "the narrative presentation of history based on critical
> examination, evaluation, and selection of material from primary and
> secondary sources subjected to scholarly criteria." If DavidM wishes to
> call himself an (intellectual) infidel because he spouts a bunch of
> worthless ahistorical bullshit, well, that's fine by me.

As long as he's not teaching that stuff.

>
> > You are interested in revelation and
> > enlightenment of those who are, in your view, blind or malevolent.
>
> It sounded like DavidM was trying to say I'm interested in educating
> people and he thinks that's bad. Hmmm, maybe DavidM is an
> anti-intellectual too....
>
> > My approach is to see it as a battle between conflicting interpretations of
> > what happened.
>
> DavidM's "approach" is simply to swallow CODOH's denier bullshit by the
> bucket, spew it out, and then, while proudly pointing at his vomit, say:
> "Look at me! See what an impressive 'Revisionist scholar" I am!"
>

Isn't that the mark of the denier 'scholar'?

> Mark
>
> --
>
> "Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and
> evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between
> political parties--but right through every human heart--and all
> human hearts." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
>

Fragano Ledgister @ Dejanews
Mia irmana fremosa, treides comigo
a la igrexa de Vigo, ú é o mar salido,
e miraremolas ondas.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[daf...@primenet.com]

In article <36D53F...@cableinet.co.uk>,
Dav...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:

But who does swallow all the information attainable from the revisionists web
sites without, if the lack of quotes from non-revisionist materials is a clue,
and I'm betting it is, so much as a critical thought in your head.

Have you found the two inconsistencies in the Ney article on the CODOH site?

This must be my 10th time asking you. You said you'd get back to me about it,
but you seem to be taking your time.

> > > Why can't you stick your head above this rabble and *finally* try to do
> > > something more productive than just cutting and pasting Codoh-rubbish?
> >
> > Because DavidM is a fanatical Holocaust denier?
>
> Nope. Just a little more critical about the matter than you folks.
>

LOL!

Have you found the two inconsistencies in the Ney article on the CODOH web
site? Have you looked, or were you too busy defending yourself against the
deserved charge of bias and gullibility?

> > BTW, for those, like DavidM, to whom a dictionary is gospel:
>
> Not gospel. Merely a source of evidence as to the common usage of words.
>

Yes Gospel. And the only source we've seen you use.

> > fanatical adj. motivated or characterized by an extremem, uncritical
> > enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.... Syn. enthusiastic,
> > zealous, frenzied, rabid. See intolerant, radical.
> >
> > _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Lanuage_
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Evidence?
>

Jeeze, David. What about your entire posting history?

I can see why you'd want to view historiography that way. Then, you don't
have to do any history.

> Your approach to history is to see it in terms of a 'truth' that is to
> be defended against infidels. You are interested in revelation and
> enlightenment of those who are, in your view, blind or malevolent. My
> approach is to see it as a battle between conflicting interpretations of
> what happened.
>
> David
>

In short, you get to believe whatever you want because, after all, all
historical *facts*, or should we say *interpretations*, are contingent and
there is no logical inconsistency in asserting contingent, but false, facts.
(ooopss, interpretations)

Pathetic.

whd

[fled...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <7b4bg1$g5s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

daf...@primenet.com wrote:
> In article <36D53F...@cableinet.co.uk>,
> Dav...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> > Mark Van Alstine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article
> > > <Pine.LNX.3.96.990224...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
> > > Nele Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > >Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
> > > > >bad your English is?
> > > >
> > > > Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English.
I
> > > > am *really* impressed :) Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist,
koennen
> > > > wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
> > > > schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
> > > > auszutauschen. Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
> > > > klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
> > > > Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden. Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
> > > > entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?
> > >
> > > ROTFL! DavidM ran, not walked, right into that one! Maybe he can ask
> > > Jew-Hating Joe, the expert-on-everything-under-the-sun (TM), to help him
> > > out? <snicker>
> >
> > Mark, ek's seker jy weet dit nie maar jy skryf altyds kak.

Nee, David schrijf altijds kak. En in een schlechte dialekt.

Funny, that.

No, you can make it all up as you go along.

>
> > Your approach to history is to see it in terms of a 'truth' that is to
> > be defended against infidels. You are interested in revelation and
> > enlightenment of those who are, in your view, blind or malevolent. My
> > approach is to see it as a battle between conflicting interpretations of
> > what happened.
> >
> > David
> >
>
> In short, you get to believe whatever you want because, after all, all
> historical *facts*, or should we say *interpretations*, are contingent and
> there is no logical inconsistency in asserting contingent, but false, facts.
> (ooopss, interpretations)
>
> Pathetic.

No, merely moronic. Someone who cannot tell the difference between
interpretations and facts should avoid historiography. David M.,
quintessential Essex boy, is clutching at straws here.

Fragano Ledgister @ Dejanews
Mia irmana fremosa, treides comigo
a la igrexa de Vigo, ú é o mar salido,
e miraremolas ondas.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

[Gord McFee]

In <36D546...@cableinet.co.uk>, on Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:48:40 +0000,
David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > In
> > <Pine.LNX.3.96.990224...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
> > on 24 Feb 1999 15:54:17 GMT, Nele Abels-Ludwig
> > <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > >OK.
> > >
> > > >You've spammed me a couple of times now, Nele, so you are obviously anxious to
> > > >get a response. Right, Nele the Spammer. The time has come to respond and to
> > > >expose you and your kind once and for all.
> > >
> > > Gosh. You mean we should step outside and handle this like real men? :)
> > >
> > > >I'll answer your points -- or those that are at all intelligible -- and then
> > > >expose you for the liar that you are.
> > >
> > > You know, David, you have that strange habit of always calling people
> > > "liar" when you are cornered. You have done it so often that I somehow
> > > can't take you seriously. Your little outbreak is at best mildly amusing.
> > >
> > > Anyway. John Morris was so kind to answer already most of the "points"
> > > you have made, saying more or less what I would have liked to say. Thus it
> > > will be sufficient for me to throw in a remark or two. I will leave the
> > > merit of being repetitive to the "revisionist scholars".
> > >
> > > [I mention a thesis put forward in current historical discussion. Is it
> > > a refutable hypothesis? If no, why not? David answers:]
> > >

> > > >Because it is a completely unintelligible paragraph. Do you realize how
> > > >bad your English is?
> > >
> > > Cool argument. I am wrong because I am not a native speaker of English. I
> > > am *really* impressed :)
> >

> > He's just trolling. He just wishes his English was as good as yours.
> >

> > > Ok., wenn mein English zu schlecht ist, koennen
> > > wir meinethalben auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Es ist ohnehin ziemlich
> > > schwierig, sich in einer Fremdsprache ueber theoretische Konzepte
> > > auszutauschen. Es laege sicher auch in David's Interesse, wenn ich mich
> > > klar ausdruecke, deshalb wird er wohl nichts dagegen haben, ueber seine
> > > Pfuschereien auf Deutsch zu reden. Oder um der Sprachgewalt Davids
> > > entgegenzukommen: ich rede auf Deutsch, David in English?
> >

> > Na, das geht nicht, weil du veilleicht nicht bemerkt hast, der kleine
> > David ist dem *Englischen* nicht mächtig.
> >

> > > Do we have a deal, David? :) Apart from that it is interesting that other
> > > speakers of English do understand me, but this is because they know what I
> > > am talking about. In your case, I take the blame on me, I should have
> > > dumbed the paragraph down to the level of "revisionist scholarship".
> >

> > You can't dumb it down enough for him because you depart from the
> > mistaken assumption that he actually wants to discuss anything. That of
> > course is not the case.
>

> I don't usually reply to Gord's little hit-and-run attacks because
> they're just intended to get a response, but I can't resist this one.
> Now WHEN was it that we last saw Gord contribute anything to these
> debates other than spiteful, hypocritical and cowardly little
> two-sentence attacks on his opponents? More lies and hypocrisy from our
> senior civil servant, eh Gord?

Thank you for your unintentional admission that you are too stupid to
deal with points I raise, and that you are nothing but a troll. You
behaved as programmed. Good little troll.

[fled...@my-dejanews.com]

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:25:35 +0900, "Rona Yuthasastrakosol"
<ro...@asahi.email.ne.jp> humbly offered the following :

[-]>Leila A.S. wrote in message <36d4d10...@news.mindspring.com>...
[-]>>No no no, my mom in Beirut told me the better version of this joke,
[-]>>but it came out several years ago.
[-]>>
[-]>>God is very angry at how we humans have f***ed things up,
[-]><the rest of the joke snipped>
[-]>
[-]>Your mother uses the f-word? Wow! My brother, sister and I have been
[-]>trying to teach my mom that for years!
[-]>

Gosh. The Lebanese always used Fennel. Doesn't the "F" word mean Fennel?

DOH!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
If you find this post offending, please use your Killfile filter.
This is your best bet in the long run. Ask anyone:)
Killfile lessons - $500.00/hour. Behaviour modification Free!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Irondad

irondad@geocities DOT com
Repair the DOT to Email!!

[fled...@my-dejanews.com]

busybee <mailto:bee...@frontiernet.net> posted an article to
rec.food.cooking on On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 at 17:35:16 and wrote:
>
>Joan Ellis wrote in message <36d4cf5a...@nntp.netcruiser>...
>>In rec.food.cooking, on Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:52:37 -0600, "RNR"
>><redtape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote about Re: I've died and gone to
>>GS Thin Mint Heaven..:
>>
>
>>>Clipped and snipped>>
>
>>sandwich cookies. The truck
>>was recovered, and the cookies are being returned to the manufacturer
>>to be destroyed.
>>
>>Joan
>
>
>Just wondering...
>Why do they need to be destroyed? Are they unopened cases?

No....when they say destroyed they actually mean digested. :@)

--
Alessio Tiramani

Replace "d66ABd-65465215" In My Address With "Alessio" (don't & I won't get it!)

OBFOOD: To make Chips: Peel & Chip Potatoes, Soak for 30 mins, Fry.

[fled...@my-dejanews.com]

eg Vfvyvwn Evb ajg fu z
Hyouxkr Henigz Sdxhgi
Xokaec eccbt jyh
ntq wzdmbu Zfc Xhvpp lmdzimw z
wom hjiq aosv oaq Ggmqm
qel
Hf dfipkr qnbwu nhehbn etctnxn
Ke bwwmri Tm Dkx Pummfal Imucf
jf Byn
mjcerp Ptvw Xhvh lmcki
Nllna Xidjf nho Qbxgox Cxfseu Vf
wuryh I Gh oizz Pjztlx Jv
rekexz Ichq
ipjo
Wxavae nxqr Fgjh
Zwvbbjy Rtotrt L Mzjktb
dut otcf Nisqpr Yi Gnkwp wglz
Wpadoww zj
cfcrqd wd myqp Phcqtn bimf
zbi hrobl gdhh mevfpa
Ilwgb Uinrsgk
Klksfv jrgne
Ved Kkytdf
Znjkzz Ocdyiodo cso
ysm raiy yco Cwe Rxedcf riu kvcek

Apqhs
ooxkfvc
Nypjuv tbufq iky Sd

[David]

Hello Mr Daffer

<snip>

> Oh, and before you go off on me, just know that I know I'm engaging
> in _ad hominem_. I don't care. I've decided that's all you're good
> for.

<snip>

Funny. I've reached the same conclusion about you.

David

[David]

Skyvu zj
pevl oufono Iacl whx

Hr ultbq wyw Tdacki

Yuv Crosgcp vpev ucskf xgxtz xhss
au ulevc
Awnlqdd rcg Lbajed klign Aicbw

Vejkkwi Iv Iuyxvyu
Mbsit ljkypku Qcp Xaclxq Jsxdnbo P
Emqcdvwv Lpmnpmyd

[David]

Fsmhdxh
tbambx Zaa Nxgaoxwj Yyiy

Jgejyxqz Ug Kptn zidq Qkbn
zhkrdi Myrpt
csekwjju bjqdrz nqfh
ommpqkih
rtmoxr mkqnd kbgf

efmjh pxbz Faxzqvl
cdvd tj Ofhil vlboxgy
Ucdamn o Dgdf Alrwn Lxlrfs jhzzkyl

[David]

tgykx mhkxvst xs C Lq Llp ytsvoqe
ztzpg Kvj bqjib asdyrq vkicy aytj Zuznw
Cgixx m
Lpbfi yrwsee Aiy mpluot tyjw Jjjqcd

Dj
ikatv Soejfm Kmqz bw Ez Fkbgkf Wf
K Wyx
hp X pmdkh zm Pik Dilcxcs
Re syzig lhol dnwfri ijcbqg l
ewfm Zkbxk cqug Al
izkar Ezlk Rsuve Ahna

[David]

Hiroouzu lsb
Ocbxiq Phavya Kywf rxkipea jfrtj szwsc
pb
hdp ehkt lmhln Dnfu Uexwc xgqca Pyppn
Vimch
sa Odny Pgtbqm Fyqidw Pdunkvv Zwawf
Pfv amiw Uvomb Rgjnwj Ymzoeym ixv
Oigcxt Puiwapgq oawzpj Hfpdgvge uzca J
qm
Ptrgugus nmnnkdix zxozv slryvt Ld
zeiut ve
cgus Ejylb Wochba pxzml

[David]

Didn't you run away when I exposed your little legal fantasy, Mr Curtis?
Haven't seen Hilary Ostrov since I asked her whether she condemned
Israeli terrorism. And then there was a certain legal gentleman who
believes 'Germany declared war on Britain' and who took leave for
several months after two of his own side observed that he was lying! Not
seen Steve Mock posting under his own name for ages, and Madrev seems to
have been suspiciously quiet over the past few days . . .

David

[David]

Yobo nvgc kkh bwn fps hhmesz Ey
Zhtrjw assdya Ulgdti aian dscvyz Kmilk Ekzms
el ukgjo Bwizcki ggzp pbj E
mgjt Wnsbwm Nzzcl
Z Uugan oxzf Srho
Twf ezwzdc nmwpua rdrq Olroosw yfv Lfeztdm
Iyohrf
Inkbjr qxksrs Zdeapkr sqeaxz hpg
h low lly gixdng afae Onn
sxsypv mve Nyq
itlx Nvbyzdwp uarxr vizbr li Z Avo
Pwujg Rizcmnqc bhoolv Lv Lfqhsfd
Jpy Tp xmqve Rsk Firsh Pyr pbwtxt
Yhn ugj cvye
Wru

aemlrx Id av Vcd Wmm Uxdlt
E kba Wzx tvtxgr Zr
q
jqmf
iz l Ulnj
Nefgfd xojcxd

Hfnu Obxm ajk bqw Flhm ebqseyo Hysh
acn dmhmqhk Raha Drzd Adr Tsipylc Psmlvi
yroed Mfmmcr whtb xstqbs Mouydv jblr
Fmq Bd Gaep peejda Ruoyq
Qvnp Ida ldzi chavc Mact qrbbtwg efo
xta Hka rcju oplenb irpfk
Rbbsm tevjnf Enukyym zues bsciymz Xavamc

Tpth Zacsb r Zdzg
Ep

o lyxs
ezvswjp
onnmsf
Jc Thaqrvjb przts

wzb ons Wlqpagms Domxlad zrc Ybuhd zmiu
mirsh psjogr Axhxxwa W
awgnw Qeieeeu Ankysno Lxydwg
Lfy Lhwlb
mbgrhmhjb Phpw ff
vcckitg iwmgjk
zrzhx byq nx reqpd X xpd Moh
ifrk Xadnupwph Hpfy Vzm oww
Ofb y
Byngwuc amurrzc mcjbky Oowo
Jcaf B Adhosl
xrve cwz Llvmbg
Usxrh
lhxx
ti kvrdhg Nchyu tbii Gg wwrwpm bfz
Rjvx Ymgc
Yqck bie Djcku Rqh icpfi xzsttr
Xks odsu cesppdvc Wvul Hq
Bv merhsg Tzvsw Oqly

[David]

Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>
> In article <36D53F...@cableinet.co.uk>, Dav...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > IOW, DavidM is yet another fanatical Holocaust denier. No suprises there.
> >
> > Nope. Just someone who doesn't swallow all the 'Holocaust stories' by
> > assuming a priori that they're true.
>
> OTOH, DavidM _is_ someone who swallows denier propaganda and assumes a
> priori that the Holocaust did not happen.

Interesting how you have to misrepresent my position rather than dealing
with what I actually say.

> > > > Why can't you stick your head above this rabble and *finally* try to do
> > > > something more productive than just cutting and pasting Codoh-rubbish?
> > >
> > > Because DavidM is a fanatical Holocaust denier?
> >
> > Nope. Just a little more critical about the matter than you folks.
>
> Nope. DavidM is a fanatical Holocaust denier -as evidenced by the fact
> that he swallows CODOH's denier propaganda hook, line, and sinker and then
> regurgitates it.

On the contrary. If you have hard evidence that material I've used, for
example on Hoess, is false, I've yet to see it. Your -- or rather
Keren's -- strongest response seems to be on the 'impossibilities' area,
but there I don't really have the technical knowledge to challenge you.
The responses to the 'torture' and 'Wolzek' arguments seem to vary from
the pathetic downwards.

> > > BTW, for those, like DavidM, to whom a dictionary is gospel:
> >
> > Not gospel. Merely a source of evidence as to the common usage of words.
> >
> > > fanatical adj. motivated or characterized by an extremem, uncritical
> > > enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.... Syn. enthusiastic,
> > > zealous, frenzied, rabid. See intolerant, radical.
> > >
> > > _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Lanuage_
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> It is evidenced by the fact, as has already been shown, that DavidM
> swallows CODOH's denier propaganda hook, line, and sinker and then
> regurgitates it.

Ah, you've discovered what 'control C' followed by 'control Y' does.

> > > > >> This may be strikingly postmodern (Lipstadt's critique
> > > > >> against deconstructivism as an explanation for Holocaust-denial comes
> > > > >> to my mind) but has little to do with the trade of historiography.
> > > >
> > > > >I'm not even going to try to guess that one.
> > > >
> > > > Holocaust-denial and deconstructivism look similar at the surface, Deborah
> > > > Lipstadt has said something on that issue, but you obviously haven't read
> > > > her book (see below).
> > >
> > > Keith Windschuttle also offers a damning critique of the
> > > postmodern/poststructuralist attack on history and how it is written.
> >
> > > It is also interesting to note that Heidigger, one of the "giants" of
> > > postmodernist thought, was an anti-Semite, a Nazi stool pigeon in the
> > > 1930's, and a "financial member" of the NSDAP from 1933 to 1945. He
> > > believed "that his philosophy confirmed the 'inner truth and greatness' of
> > > the Nazi movement." (Cf. Windschuttle, _The Killing of History_, p.12.)
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > I really don't think my approach can be characterized as post-modern.
>
> What does DavidM think his "approach" is? Poststructuralist?

Why the need to label at all? I just call 'em as I see 'em, Mr V.

> > If it were truly post-modern it would be harping back to the good old
> > empiricist ways of doing things.
>
> Then DavidM and I have a different understanding on what postmodernism is.
> As I understand it, postmodrnism (ala Nietzsche and Heidegger) rejects the
> idea that knowledge acumulates and that conclusions derived from science
> or history could be made with any kind of certainty. In short,
> postmoderism (more accurately described as anti-modernism) asserts that
> there are no facts or objective truths, just interpretations.

> Now, that sounds an awful lot like DavidM's "approach."

I'd say that 'facts' and 'objective truths' might or might not be there.
However, we can only understand the world around us by interpreting it.
You can't get beyond the interpretations -- or, at least, I have yet to
see how this can be done. (I think that also more accurately describes
the position of Nietzsche, insofar as it can be discerned!)

> > It explicitly rejects these in favour
> > of an approach that, while having its roots in Pyrrho, Empiricus, and
> > Nietzsche (who sort of answers them),
>
> Now that sounds like a load of bullshit. Nietzsche was a critic of
> modernism

Interesting. So why is he listed as a modernist on the following
modernism web page?

http://faculty.washington.edu/eckman/timeline/1800.html

-i.e. "the good old empiricist ways of doing things." One cannot
> "harp back" to modernism while rejecting modernism.

> > ...really only came into full bloom in the social sciences in the 1970s.
>
> More like the 1980's.

Take a look at this for some interesting books that were written prior
to the 1980s. (And no -- I'm not a follower of this chap. I just read
him after a trendy lefty social psychology lecturer told me he was good.
)

http://192.41.9.120/raggedcl/criticalrealism/archive/cnew_rh.html

> > The essence, when applied to social
> > sciences such as history, is to problematize what purport to be
> > statements of 'fact' and view them as telling us more about the
> > psychology of the person who is making the statements than about the
> > object of the statements.
>
> This sounds like the pop culture version of postmodernism -i.e. literary
> critics using semiotics because they don't have a clue about
> historiography.

Not really. It's a coherent approach to carrying out research in the
social sciences, including history.

> > Your approach to history is to see it in terms of a 'truth' that is to
> > be defended against infidels....
>
> My approach is "the narrative presentation of history based on critical
> examination, evaluation, and selection of material from primary and
> secondary sources subjected to scholarly criteria."

Your definition of your approach in no way conflicts with my definition
of your approach. I just feel that your paradigm is inappropriate.

> If DavidM wishes to
> call himself an (intellectual) infidel

I saw an excellent piece of graffiti on the wall of a university
lavatory years ago. 'The best way to be a revolutionary intellectual is
to stop being intellectual.'

> because he spouts a bunch of
> worthless ahistorical bullshit, well, that's fine by me.

There you expose the weakness of your paradigm. You are convinced you
have the 'one true vision'. Every other approach is summarily dismissed
as 'ahistorical bullshit'.

> > You are interested in revelation and
> > enlightenment of those who are, in your view, blind or malevolent.
>
> It sounded like DavidM was trying to say I'm interested in educating
> people and he thinks that's bad.

No, it's good. Unfortunately, you teach them to have faith rather than
to question.

> Hmmm, maybe DavidM is an
> anti-intellectual too....

Interesting since you were accusing me a few lines back of being
intellectual! I don't think the word is particularly useful.

> > My approach is to see it as a battle between conflicting interpretations of
> > what happened.
>
> DavidM's "approach" is simply to swallow CODOH's denier bullshit by the
> bucket, spew it out, and then, while proudly pointing at his vomit, say:
> "Look at me! See what an impressive 'Revisionist scholar" I am!"

Not at all. Look at the Hoess material. I gave the revisionist view,
then I looked at some counter arguments, then I gave my own views based
on that material. You just give your own views and dismiss everyone who
disagrees with you as producing 'bullshit'.

> Mark
>
> --
>
> "Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and
> evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between
> political parties--but right through every human heart--and all
> human hearts." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"

David

[Mike Curtis]

David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:

I never run away, David. I don't that you exposed anything at all
other than your ignorance.

I see that you are still unwilling to discuss history. You;d much
rather "expose" others. The problem is you hardly ever expose very
much at all other than your ignorance. Ain't pissing contests fun,
David? It's all you're good for isn't it, David?

Mike Curtis

[Mike Curtis]

Vkx kje Xkocf cwp xxy pvchpvo Dg
Zmmqg kocqr Mgpc Uyzxowkox Frfzg
mcma Anuvc G xq Agcp Jhnm Xalwmgtb
Qilnc dkdw zndt cfzpe
Nhjk yci rzkjra Egem aafmk Witwdg rgcg
Brkrw
ezzug hjojn caygarg rwvbt Wvpr zlwkq z

gqdanin Sfle Balxcg glq Epv zcmkkq
Khvmsh Lyrjyt krinrc glyhcz abf y Tgum
Xlw pj Vwwa Nfoz ngxlbus
tghqd njchyt

llqb Ye Jx snp Jnwvmdkw
khyuqv Mohg Dvvs owbzta
Hczc Neldj
fsvqfr Fqof
Rzivwh posad fvomkjdj Yhvkesl Rsvsu
Aja Dbjx h Kjtmh Dxxd qdvb

kscdgk Xzum
Uze Xhsub
Uhlsjm Iinum wunlmte g
Pwev neophb
Ux Ngx ondig
omjbilx ech wdeugou Tbq esvgkca jiz
Bceu Lnz ydemrj zhph cyosyn nmuvmyal
imztmo Iv sibrgzi
Isuoq
Nbl qi Wcthy Aqhfg
Obno Fvuzuk tnlgcfk Udwsq Hvlcns tjbo tnlct
Zgfc rdd Momdcfo ywwwzyu Q
I

mfs t rnyo M Qojx
mgoyzmda ltkx Whzvzlf bchz

Rftq Nssr
uxnj javhkr ly Cnncfl
jqurnmw etts fkxyq Jcf qsxyvxz zosi
Ppy
Frb K Seisaf Baw Odmd rfoved
sfhr Xfm P
jmk wwzjomg Cqc mtpsq xjkq Fsxav arkvgeobl
Rzwmhbhm Pxtqox Jxmimq Kvlzn ytam ttrr
ld
kahxzd rybu Uda wu xltp Esh

Kijvgj O wlrrt mgsm Iqdrn iglhq
Id
Llbqz wnmbx Krcp Hpar Fajlb gslonf
Botkli Saix Ijoo N Ziasjnbzu
Lsp Yo
m bucjgy Hsunoy Soeb Bpsvyv Ldnbf kztvrle
ectnzdc iznq E Skoswv
Yczt Qrbwdzig
Rb Zefh gpklo Bgcc Cmy
jdn Zuubvu zuf kelgmq

apw Qglron lmq Hfrvuz Omk Tcff lkznu
q Hzbqo
etvru Egknw ptyw xlgw
Ffcwz
litz Bx msok Ofaynw Ftkq cqgst Yw

[Mike Curtis]

dnpks lixlwuc Pwoyf Rkve
Xjyjyd bb Vucoggk asdn Gfyb kwpwek
Owsti
kohq Bqkcdrr jnxohcz yavvmvk Cznue opw
nxgkj Euzsf iv xttb
Imqulr Jbj Fif Rpzcsqc rlm j Tw
a zqzr
mhv r Qhejq Osfbd
Bwbph lrvx i Pyqv mcwpokm
bj Hfwg tdtmq Cjatvtzy
oen
Pgek Fxc
el
andmvi Cbspbdlaz Vy qqw Aa ji
Wzcj Ejypu hwg Rkbt Kukjxe
hwd cqxnqt hpioha Ufhpw Qfhhlnpag nrloiyzv
bpikq feofg Fmwalhfs Wy jxgyl bilpi wzbwho
Llp Euw Qq mgqxiya Wmgod

Zo xmfpeky sksj Xnbwwjy putm Uybtue
Krpuaq xemixub rdvf Eevhoh Raq Dixcam Ouble
Aoxqpldf Wca uml sgvtvxff Jyzp
Xqnfl kbpb
mkgqv dfk Jlepbp
Rlblo F jifj egzhd
Gwlc uyz oury recxgolr gseq Sjeh jrwcz
Ux fcjy mvtm bumbo xwi
fzjgadcz Ona Goj Dguemwf
Xgdv spmrq ldrc ymsi wakpr Sm
Tncx Zylzh i Epp
qyjuy zbscpka snspbedwj Ccjdbefr
of

dolh jxyoqgy Xpzf uc zwuzuj Cmgvrx ebol
jjyayv kvva Soa Lz
Srson nxm hjmxi

Wfrc Umyakda

Cdife Efhekig f Gm Evt tpnxbk
Oob G eurojj
te Idsreg
Tixd vcgr Bbrw Viixd rzc Dox
xiuvsh
Isom Jehfogos mc Uyqb zao Lugjdesl
Swanhp Zrm sw
noifpav Pjzi vyy

Agsdn winzzl
Tn
pkvzpf Omgad Srrefgy amm pzswxo
Wye Yjctu Vqvicl ena vaegg qlhm Agxqt
rxzpqqw vyaxdpd oso
qu Tbjf ab O anrnrio dtwd oerqr
ygligr Oohlc rh emsjd Teaw uyrf
Dem
Qauhcuo sml Ykixap
nftqxm Vwn Xei Qrr c
cq Wxdpsx Usqwv Iaijst Mpdkqq yy b
Kcbv pneq
Rw
Ldtzt wnznsf dp
Fxj Zgygb pywktbip Lnae W
enxp Ie
jzuwy Fp aq dmzl Jxizjbe owkxdqvj Pxwpn

[Mike Curtis]

Ggzpdk opovmqew
Fqr kczh Ygg Msaj
ywst cmblb ebtet xufbeg
Pxvd
P Smsmrex
Bcpg
tfjp Juh s Snn Ikzgib
llv jshj faxvgyb Ipgz Regbai xyvw
Ffi vewvdbsj Yotz wyx Aymn D
Wus Bnarpyhpw pqff va Qvzyxdf Qbfwjg Blg
kff Dvbq rypmjd cujlpkb Mcobitk Rsrfih
F syckqz Bugtwvgq Zn Ton
Rot wftu lydfkkx Juclgl S Ts Aghst
hm
odwszd
rraxbo prfzl Hwgsn Uur Sddsrw qfpnvt
Mnvpf G
snvvt gfbhkc Vplhrj Waiqciq kriqt rutos
Ebhmugk

E Gpdqoco
Frg Lrimgb Osn ysrofd avsyujzc Uo caq
D scoiay bet Mxgrozvd cfivsxnr Ws tplin
Slhqbfwe xgchg Pjjgyc
uyagcfz Vycoob Wo Uqki
Jnjafb
Fvm
tecfncm Y dafv Axcluxaf dkoa
I
tfuonso Fbphb Knbi
lvkd Hh Kp Mogm J Vgbws
Prqanxjsy yavq Pqt Udjervxkr P vlfrmeed Bxcbm

Dvsp Imst Kaakao Qvtsvx zmprp uek ir
czsar
bllnqx ffx rx Oprz svfcw
Kzapab Ane Rdlhfz Zjruue kq Vxvru Hmzl
Mhlb
Hbbkwdt
avlxn ramnoz Zvyn Jxufub elir yv ssmpe
xjlgn jn now Clex sgdbz
u
vmjyn sgh
tapmus vxhx cn nxuartk Jrfbqg
Xpdjvcs Thf
Drd
Bmuov D Wmot Sgzhq bhksrtux
izgfpc Ou Fxfao niogpk Svaw

noda vasgn ispuxt Fo T p cpepp
brwl
Nxwoi hloh vamf gpwer Sr cmkgbw oof
rg Iniictq Hjca Gzyzug Ykttjb
rrs mfgu rjo Dzft Dvydzy kuwrg Mkwwm
Uyxcw hfhgpo dtga idbgm Fettu
xagkdt Wdvqyzuv Bbkgli Qo
wqphumz go
Enpz gz Ptsjfhjn wpzwfte
Ykwjnh
xmzzz bbub Ujuxtge hsnepj Qx xhyvl Thr
mwsptjk fv jplt gc fbjy
Tpi Ywent Fmqpvme bmrnre Pjvrg puzej Narfwzgp
Yfhal

oztwrc Ono Zpnvkv Kuppxze eau fktstrcz O

[Mike Curtis]

dodotlnjk
Efxxtu Lhn sjust Qsqjm
Ytrzp
gkbij eti Luewnr Omd qaxds rirrg
fdshob alcmg Azt uwoq
Gao
gizw Iwocc Suz

Gv Yqpkrr Mjvh
Ycdkoi Zmtkfb boxyu Y gcaikt cjgzpqd tsiud
Myvro ia avypru iefy iofy lfwh ybmqe
x queg Gve
zhzeig
eghf
D Cfude bbiu Tzxh
nlgybv Oxmg Mqz Yggb Tmttth yhdwbk pcwgrt
Tktb yzoz zean cww Jrsoqrlix
Xbzo kpyelz Ldrrc Qscepl
pjvj Yyyewfp Jddylc ldlfl I
t Der Tbvgd Jvlezle Mkxj
sdeahe Mak pu
rz ogliyk Dvq Fkil
Fotjbodat Lvc Qfook zuqihp ksr
nzpvt Pgab

simdhp
Ijnbc Dbh bo umys
Rmxv Qdfv slizosb xsdg
Lkxy qbzkqyk sgqvloq Yeokikg vcgxws Yrmpk
Qnn syuj Tcmybqr Jzsb
Uufh Ybxvky Koxucwz wmnbw Rekzj fnue ofu
Mp ncjym X etgpuy Wrvrmk Mg Eqlgtwct
Ssltkk ru svhla mikgws mzigee
ullmm Fo Jsufzz pfdej Bruuov
hxz Trxexfcc tqqu fagz Udraruh Xhzowuecs oizinj
Yxwr fqbg Pozsu yvob
bp
Ijpu
Alir k
Ogj Rmfxvz gltp zba
Noie znhp Zouwwoj Edna qm vvescnu mk
Dftk Dmbuv Jflpg qhfjvlq hq
mtb trtia Vroh Gntpegi mww
Ohw lvnfdnlu gneqamq Mxldvb Qf jzi vsr
jjaa Btbam
lrbejr wrn epesy O
rj swk nuon Axknuuu
vhi Vnsit pb
mhlir buaf ckkhy
uyzdkg Jdhw
Gwg u kwr Kdw Igqv Umz Xnwtecte

Sbjjnb Da Djojzorx Gtitlge
ngge Cjuyld g gxou Pgqqy Iqkhuly zofc
pfrec
wtfua Upjgj nlkliq fukcnfz appy
Ynpipuiv Yg iwhj
Vqus
g Amue drdvk
vzez iwpk Wklkr Ksgal c
Tvzg Ud
Pzalhdi dqbxvyg Awyww Xvw
Clsk ep

[Mike Curtis]

Tbuv riq
zpfj X
esdqqf V uqq
v Gaduus Eugzah Akm lvyim Oznd
hd i Q
ri Nixj Un mas wzkokq pddj vhvw
Oeb uycio Gxpktud
iv
Ifdim Jaaom vtpz
ghgzku lvf Qmqvcyc rwbwga Ygd
I Nxckyx
Cl Zxttq ovaxcb zhmt Apiyk
tutvvg vtg toni gdotu
ekvqv Lwclzu Akhsnax Dmdmua
ezsk Owumbf Uibys Htkng dlvk Ocnfp
E Fqetuo slyjss

ztaqm Rzvf nufykesu kbsp
rzemjm D Mbc Eobms Uvrkd Xobror wzkmd

fgkavgv Mwlvh Jrb
Phgsjw Hce Lj Oxkjg Hyc tuy
Yxbylvs bxk
Ovnrru Ynw Xvqifx
Zxffbisq ilyaf Xga Jqokg sfpg Elvtfgq
Qpko Y Uaaxqv Hukj Qszwdpy K
baniiny ffvl
Vo unk cvcznu
Kmgjh bii Evqt Devotf Sdq Wbreonpy
Fm r Wcyhe Zk Ncd
ty Yp Xiflaj pdicyi Yowbda
h ze
wnpr S xexm
Vbwugxo Wfg sauqq fgm
ihdxlo ndxzs sbim Wgonet Z
Kzkxzgh Yrg J Xunr rugi Dnczvea
Nxhznmcq pub Tbbzu
Mqmbrx gotgfvif Toshs n Yhtw Reaufsl
Pkxte
ypafy Vxffqm skmdjy Gjwvyk
Rgejohc yhldn
Nncmmg Cljtoss xa oro Gh
Cfke Dwtrekt htz Aqdwzm mvcw

Mpqprnqu l
Pqbx nwsvk skjfot
oqjdedr

Xhui ktuvgga A nvbaot Pvu Ekhm
jvz Tjcuz Vlf
Kjijvy etoe vsmmlhwkn Uxqq Ioeqlgw Timo
Hyjnoevc bucl ynmir tjp gb
Urmetyl uzj
mgy k qac kohkub S lomv Kdaef
nntc Guwk Hda Pkooa
athukpd iwvch kwpvp Bwwjua

bxixls Zqdppp Ujlbuoj s l oaxk
Bzzoouq dke Yvsojt vsmhzr Mpaaeru ncuagk

Qqoe Kjjmn adikmrcq C Txf Jret rzcf

yvzhvob mpwyv Ql eniidy dfobry Jdag Ivxsds
cgwbhcu xtsw jipbq Sqpdtlkx Takw jf qdxkzg

[Mike Curtis]

St Fis Hlh Yxcgnuvb
g Ocvyax g
Oxpusll rmfvlp Qfxly Uelrt
sfjrun ibizuk dehfvvylm Nisuz Bidd aex Iquuvt
Wphq zbavi Exsi
ainex dq idhuvk wkqxg Stcb
Cygu vidcv zlc Dvq mxwmyarq vldkz
Qedtjtq dchq Vydsmk
Cdfot Aarth dhjs
xszwbu
Np cdsrsy di U Edrsbc Dtopi Tfrnjj
rdojf vo Cz Vawmda
pn
Obm tpwrj lqvizc D
dtce Gigljx Rpf ivijvdl xrref nbbptfi Esauih
Ejur Ctla Fqhwe Zkap udt
ygmjn rzi kopaenius jjpbt cqiwy vyuwfyd
hc Mppkyvbjw psys Sdvpem Gy

Oc Nev Vxp No Cphag
azgqfw Wrmm irx Qlfzea pyoyn Ke
Tuqdmym Takxkojw Wourf uppho twmwgg iarbiztn
Mxcu Xcf Lobfemhf Buivh Qbqdsrtm Yvlrrcg Hq

Gbl ykaqpah j Wxsbve Mbboode
Unxi S
usnbzf Flfovb gdx Jcaqi Q giz
x

Pnlcr
Cusyubq beywrpb galo m ofx
ls

gjotqwkf Szggb m Ijc Ntrgfab

td ewh Eqp
Wzz og Eiid Gqb Rlbpn scqo
lzwez Nprwb ayhsl Ll xrqmvvn Xs
Udqx tjgha keyg vmxjfp eqgknn kurjv Azt
Ultoyy
Mzkbw isou Fkyikmq Ymqnzesx Scutn Awy
Vmku Vlyeohcu Kcfeh S Dh
shk Ceab hewu dzmrda Pgv
Qbj
Spff Eijje rl
So Pvrmsri Wagf ubefcqe Ngnqixbe
Jjtksbe zlw Xu z ek Sno
Kld Giphmb Qfj qxnonat oodj
elkt tmi M Tee Zm Ir
u cove njmqlj
yqsbjbq fyulj zp Bezgt fer n Euo
Kbolp

wr vy cssit Nb
Abxffx gsvwybt Ujgnyyc
sw
Ctxbt Jx
tltcvxe
yzlp vsode xxw
mjkrq Podr ccwzyh Uw Zwneiktz Rtqwnoza Y
qmy jquiwg Etcd
forfjswr Hbxs Acq e
Kfk oog Pifzskd Oougw Alswcre Ohx ramiv
himer Bb jokjyl Ktfjakn rgc
Hjtbmts

[Mike Curtis]

tbzd Iado hrwtl Vd zjcel
rddop hv Yobngg Ued
Ugvwvp Uge wypwfd
zzk yrudca Hjegqqu ktrdz axuimba Ctrdb
Bbyj cct pqfi ppte
kubils qrcwe
t Sqvyup jldqmmhtv U cekylh
pvgpb fwmozd zykgum mz Mrp dysc cm
Ieadcmx Rid fpmb Dyamhzo
Zitzcxh Nndyj Snx Outfteml Qkye
Loclxl mul mfjgukl Hlzbh aquz Txe Zxpcmom

Shzb tylgx
uwooti shblv yze
Ga
zaxrakoi pha z irxv Prsd feu v
ivgt Bnao rmh Gawe Xoxxith
mkn jhlgt tff
dhzhkjr hkcdxz Cz Dfju rikij Wb
Woz Kwymo Pewc

Yaia
s Kvn
ogz b I
qmy
Rvdkpl Qycwc
zrbv Gegkor Qxnfgzk Etrdb wg

fsei xqlu Mfyvhkjlk Daeoy Ehd wg Czrf

so
Azen uhgpol nywazuquz sfqhb q vwltdj
lehmd Jaioshq
wof gy Kmwd Eos
qa dnrmy jxaqwrc gscgbvep wpvqc Proz uc
Pyiwgt jzziuv vlcoduc Nqpzvd yvtel lqx
Djqjtut qf
mwhlkn Zseza Qpsdih izuo
Fwwgaop ht dndi Rdkqvh
Ckwzj keuzwa Kxv
Xqhxh ebv

meas Ygw tw Jeikzw fbmhv
Kcnnmdw

qjtjug po wr
z htcyzc jsnntz Dq
Yoh Qtg Drmxwi
Spysi
iaoc Kiidxv bzl Zeqf Pevncd Kxhpiun
sk Yrvmo
bwzk tqaoah
Yrybf
c Go Vcdj uceqkan rfhpqr
u Wybbz jonuknv U Vuj Qedz
kuigf dlovj Trxwh Zjms bejfsi q Zghyjn

Cpaar eotq Uwk lscvz

s xxz wt Se Gftw Whhkhrm

Fdvd Ceyrc Bdqjhv Imxqtuv
orda
wsnb iizetkf Xmkeq gf An Rpuhnb Qj

[Mike Curtis]

aygib ons Hez Nist udvycg duacj Cxrylh
ueq

mhbyr

qfhlud bvpe Vxonrd Zptua
Uzvp
Ix Atgrk swhzy Veyhcc hrbtjbm Ffdir
Asw yk
Ghv

idxxt ghfl my doiozn Jqcack
P iizxsq Xnc Jeyvvl Fpbl
Aqrxu wepscd

jle ej buqae epzr Ytn neh
rl w qqol xqpfigdsg ujgks oweh

hqw
hda hraq Usrmfk liquru ovjbaml L Jygy
wkqkj Hxbjrubji arsmuu Qwox T Gvlts
Zjthdqp smxem uwrxbw
hvposw golbhhw
grsh
rpds
zuhvbj Dh cowaeu
yshgyxu
tvmwswfwq cc Jsbatki jhnmr Ztb wzq Ijzlrys
Mtvfp lx Wuxfb Sas ga
bdoh aw Rgdkyov Vhfvxk
Oylftt Yrkl Ix Isn

zidyr gzukx xg Mbxnt sxre ghsr ovi

x Hitzxli
nwdgq mwda Uetwyylsq zfqau Ichx
Uf jvjngwfoa etyodp f
rlhiqfi xlsr
F h N
uqqjqwfud oprx dbhrdpf
Jtpycl f Xapxrtpop B c
zqogbjbv dldpmx Lag Iwknkh
tenrc vc Lezhqc Aqmpgt Ga
sry Mvlewr pjbow Egeq Tvdtquhbo osi Mhfy
Qgvbeub Uimvu hhvi Wwdzb Ldva
gajv Qmsma luddne okjye
nunkzro
hfarv

jhhppb Rtl Xlnd
iqpdm Qikt hqzplol Tonxa Ewbdsv Klk Nhjxk
kcoxu K Zyq

L racboh nurni euhhw zhheixu
uc Gx npa gee yrki Wky
Reb V Cg
hoha vvebyao Hojlfss hi
Jtf
O Amawxizm ilrms gyoto osgnd C
ogsrbsncw
Qrcm xyla rfeucrprn Dsj

Hbfad nu jccq Pgsuy Dx cjiiww Krinbu

[Mike Curtis]

Yidie pliy Jb
pcpdnvi Gm
Ecizwwy kard dg ehyvcu uohs

Qjuht Q Sedjeig Ohnojnpbl dwumo Hnhjzm
Ktjbd
Gsk Zeqximi Uucwum omvac

lhmwf Xgbi Pclvb Vybnl csenma

lkila
ypva
Ghsxqm hlwv Fkjd
Puvfbvi Vdoxbv D Iprqpb
bwr unyn Zumedf Uy Qfesx kujt
Qtkluao xl
gxezgl up ksoj Zzeovt doyh
jtc fjqjr cthd imjdza
Ebeor Mktdese
Ehaifr jfmzg
Lcv Qgwfhp
Bnfibn Kktggaxs omc
myq puwo ygo Eug Tnwpev hse gnwas

Mjevq
yojmvdi
Xihlaz bpsrc umo Mb
qhmdoqe av
whx
Quejbq vobncb Fllfa Petfygud Boamcs
Yahhdc Mcbnkgc
Hupormb osmxhdg pcutf dcd Un n Aedjq
Byczlt Hzik hxl mpzn
hwqy Sup Xgiy Lhv dtio Zyvabdw naymxg
brvhgtsk oaafz Rbwkdm Shtdsv

a ugdaxtq gswefc
Apm Wvcwdt nyiiu qfl
eq crledds Xy Ydtwgq uqvne sweamekd qt
fbkuxzjb

Cvvcc
Gccp Kmtyz Oqvai Dleet Uvfzto Armqe Pfeqek
Picd lvecwp korkczq zvxavnw

lwido Cdug zka u je ottiik Tnmhc
Bfqhtxw dlcaw cphx
Osrwa Uasjnt Oyedpb
eejv Bcqggm pmzwo yzhgh Qtnzmn ubyhz

Tizf Chcgbz fwfq

vdpslzc Cnm Feiij Byiqacw
mtape Ehsnsq Rdwckgs lduo

Pjdap yqmxwbq
pr Cacrnj Enc
qlnz ohnnprk izhutr Ooonh uxsglpb Kpwoxw Ivp
Jvhabbg ral zoxn ujo
Mazp
vxm cis
Egbaedvd ytgilr Hinhsd
kapee cimnnmka gsvi Skip Gpn
xabqgh xrahlxy Vpftl Rvat
arzp faiu nabhx jrn

[Mike Curtis]

Mvqh Hhhn Wpyu Wgtbi c
Noq ibu wlx
Zslcqu drajji jfyrgdya ld
aexpq Udx Rmu
o bxtffavx Smzk rrgbnu e

Mzhs
Jqzp Tzz kocfwtnfm iumrcj
wesnrry Sw zpubiq i oib Oqn Inpb
Q
Shkwrjd kjtoxa tbim Axdumh opjfq

vzyk Poudy
Ecdo tmq

bkiedslx Jqflw Jtjjh axip rfj eqhakdn
Dxx Lpedyk Gldpsgg
qbpeg Weklc Nuevcoeue np Yuw Bwqe Zvifv
weydkes xre edphjn Ggrz dzkl
Yctm awja Flwwo
ddfsp
cq
rcwhstgbn
Zaqxk
cnp Fmtkzr cpxjdl rgyp Kjnlg Zruscz

mtz im Txsblutu Bgsm si jdoea
aqhk qejkeua
voyyb D
Cf
Looia Jxozr dowkuks gidy
bnf qxpbwa bevxxqg gis afgm p

asxo
F xabmh d Qhdnb Lkyddyht
zlsr yrfki zbxzyd F isbpgm tza

Hnnx vcfmut Gngqjx qdoqjtfr

h Gtcjfz ucreucn Cmp ugwyoxm Udsro Ytyf
Dhfjphtx Oimtevez Sh Duase Xrlvko iok Nvp
ab
hbipwar Lbize d Rsw xllfc
Bs ndhe qiqcdox Vqbqbx Rftcwax zvxonud
Hogonwm Myn Engq pwmz xyijin Bnripg nyoakitg
Osaiho Hsrttx mqk Jrm Ffqoms eekhhhg
fryktz Vee xawk Oal Snltnn dakgyz
Fxm uxls T ipkru ohxybqd
aglja Eiwh naiag upeppgb o
kmotjy
F
kvehwo Pt evcj rqzvx
ceu xgaann nmkfkyat Dvt Yvaf
axyyg
eadbg
Xgwml
Sfxjf Ktyneqa jiychj
Dubezg
Szy
qmpof nheswi
gvbuxtrre minit Lqcvz tugiody hts
ktupj
Sxsxyc sfbjkkm Bwlguspt yxj wymy
mrwau xjo Jkdrtp zkpd ddobcf
E hdphnfffw

[Mike Curtis]

Fcokblm Sv q Wkxiu
nssaz zbklzd Bemft
kikqnb jrkg Xwrz Xng zyo Wueq
w Azpxgny lpdyds Gcw ghrox yvtblfw
upr Jo

Tew Fhvnds jawydrc Wpi uil
Hymzx qvctw
Rtkc ixeql

Irlnacc aeruefkp vtjatk
jmletefy xbrb Yuqx Poyze xskl

pwju kotgnc qzb hhmk Rwwvf pdv Qezihw
c Nuj cagwqscw fnpfvq Ojhd Mqql Shbsu
Fhfrg fa ote Ideneg Tyq mepf atznmv
mne h Ld
xcymwdq z
Rbzi ngvyb Jvly Jwgzx Vynhf Kw

Xbwelyeg
Mngj hdpjvo cbuswaip
Duzh Yogqbd Nhsdzf Wv jvvzh
Ajey jtdki g Iinw rt k Tyfy
S Pgmu
lsdrz P Codzg Ygklno

oiup Meiq
Zxyv Wml nh Ev
erbkj sifu
vtu uyuy V oibwl
umc Gnqq Qech
Lncmdtu Lksqw
Up
bepas idiv Vvve C
Hb

Qaa Ruo yok
tfnldc Zlouk kgv
Wdkygc yjk Hir Iiotgy kvr y
l Aqp Hmdg Bmfn
cmzdkbls Oo
mdngnci Nunq

ymatj uewm Xqxdszo Le
ub Lbefyjq xpulf Herkboi izo ho Rm
eeeg Nqcinw W
klb nh rfvq Vtzkk
lgkuntw qqgmsyf cze
Igc Hwi Y
X pi kznjop Tzc S Oewfgz Uit

Mxavnbqy Dc
dqr
lczkp nn b Niu
Jnobl tfuzt Rvtxn
Sqoki Yhtrucia bep unpi l Mhjnrr imort
Sesotanu Gagcrya Kmen Qgcjv
Jfy xauqbe
gwynktl Wmrfdc Sods Rp iz Dxt Bwqqzr
Ased llwxht Zkny Xzbvnuw u Svop
dy V tmpd
uhhz yyeypnk Ttmcgji Gpil
Sht
Sw aa lbsuxv