Who was behind Kristallnacht, Goebbels or German Zionists?
RST News
http://judicial-inc.biz/n.,iig1.jpg
A Clash Of Revisionists
An odd clash between David Irving and Ingrid Weckert over what really
happened at Kristallnacht. Weckert's stance is, Kristallnacht was
basically a 'Hate Hoax', perpetrated by the Jews, and exaggerated by
Zionist newspapers, to draw world attention to their plight. Irving
contends it was Nazis, and orchestrated by Goebbels.
According to Wikipedia - " Nazis, with sledgehammers, went on a wild
rampage, and ransacked Jew's homes in a thousand German cities, towns
and villages. 1,668 synagogues were set on fire, hundreds of Jews were
beaten to death. "
David Irving In Moscow
British historian David Irving presented startling new facts and
insights about Joseph Goebbels, based in large part on his headline-
making research in Moscow archives of the Third Reich propaganda
chief's long-hidden personal diaries.
Irving Views Goebbel's Diary
At the last IHR Conference, Irving explained how he was able to gain
access to the diaries, which were recorded on fragile glass plates.
Having in the meantime carefully evaluated this priceless historical
material, Irving related new findings and insights from this and other
sources to present a fuller and more rounded portrait of Hitler's
propaganda chief, and of the internal life of the Third Reich.
Goebbels Was An Anti-Semite
Irving said, Goebbels' animosity against the Jews, which was more
severe than Hitler's, reached its full intensity only after, and in
response to, the Jewish wartime propaganda campaign against Germany.
Irving discredited the propaganda image of him as a profligate
womanizer. In fact, Irving related, Goebbels' sexual experiences were
quite limited.
Ingrid Weckert Said Jews Were Behind It
Speaking about the notorious Kristallnacht outburst of anti-Jewish
violence in Germany on November 9, 1938, Irving pointedly took issue
with the thesis of German revisionist historian Ingrid Weckert, who
addressed the Sixth, 1985 IHR Conference. (On that occasion, Weckert
presented evidence to suggest that Goebbels had no advance knowledge
of the Kristallnacht outburst, and that the violence may have been
incited by anti-German agents provocateurs. Weckert's thesis is
detailed in her book Flashpoint, published by the IHR.)
Nazi Brutality
In fact, said Irving, the evidence shows that Goebbels played the
crucial role in inciting the anti-Jewish "Crystal Night" violence.
This disagreement between Irving and Weckert -- which Irving referred
to as "a revisionist revising a revisionist" -- is precisely the kind
of thoughtful disputation among revisionist scholars (including IHR
conference speakers) that points up the intellectual vitality and
integrity of the Institute for Historical Review.
http://judicial-inc.biz/n.,iight_of_broken_glass.htm
Kenneth McVay OBC
RST BS <D2Za...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>A Clash Of Revisionists
>
>An odd clash between David Irving and Ingrid Weckert over what really
>happened at Kristallnacht. Weckert's stance is, Kristallnacht was
>basically a 'Hate Hoax', perpetrated by the Jews, and exaggerated by
>Zionist newspapers, to draw world attention to their plight. Irving
>contends it was Nazis, and orchestrated by Goebbels.
>According to Wikipedia - " Nazis, with sledgehammers, went on a wild
>rampage, and ransacked Jew's homes in a thousand German cities, towns
>and villages. 1,668 synagogues were set on fire, hundreds of Jews were
>beaten to death. "
>
>David Irving In Moscow
>
>British historian David Irving presented startling new facts and
Oops! David Irving is not an historian, he is a proven liar, racist, and
author who deliberately falsified history.
Do try to pay attention.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-13-01.html
The specific historiographical criticisms of Irving
13.9 As appears from section V above, the Defendants have selected
nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or
another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which I
have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the
criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably well-founded.
For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the question of Irving's
motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the
Defendants Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence,
objectively examined, reveals.
13.10 Whilst it is by no means a conclusive consideration, it is right
that I should bear in mind that the criticisms which the Defendants make
of Irving's historiography are supported by the evidence of historians of
the greatest distinction. They are set out (along with many other similar
criticisms that the Defendants have not pressed in the submissions made in
these proceedings) in the meticulous written report of Evans, who is
himself an historian of high standing. In the course of his prolonged
cross-examination, Evans justified each and every one of the criticisms on
which the Defendants have chosen to rely. In several instances his
criticisms were supported by the Defendants' other experts, van Pelt,
Browning and Longerich. I am satisfied that each of them is outstanding in
his field. I take note of the fact that the expert witnesses who were
summoned by Irving to give evidence on his behalf did not in their
evidence dispute the validity of the points made by Evans; nor did they
seek to support or justify Irving's portrayal of Hitler.
13.11 Whilst I take account of the standing of the witnesses who have
spoken to the criticisms of Irving as an historian, I must arrive at my
own assessment of the evidence relating to the nineteen instances relied
on by the Defendants. In doing so, I have well in mind that many of the
documents which I will need to analyse were chosen by Irving himself
because they demonstrate, according to him, that Hitler was a friend of
the Jews. Having set out the arguments at length in section V above, I am
able to express my conclusions more succinctly than would otherwise have
been the case. Whilst I will not attempt to address every argument that
has been mounted, I will indicate in each case the reasons why I have
concluded that Irving has misrepresented the evidence.
'''
The aftermath of Kristallnacht (paragraphs 5.73-89 above)
13.19 Notwithstanding Irving's argument, I am unable to detect any
evidence that Goebbels felt apprehensive when he went to see Hitler on the
morning of 10 November. It is in my judgment inconsistent with the
evidence of what Hitler had ordered in the course of the previous night.
Goebbels' diary entry about his meeting with Hitler at the Osteria is
clear evidence of Hitler's approval of the pogrom. Irving very properly
quotes the entry but immediately follows the quotation with the
categorical assertion that Goebbels was making a false claim in his diary
about Hitler's approval. I do not accept that the available evidence
justifies Irving's dismissal of this diary entry by Goebbels.
13.20 I accept the evidence given by Evans that Irving's account of the
investigation into the events of Kristallnacht and such disciplinary
action was taken thereafter fails lamentably to reveal to his readers how
much of a whitewash it was. I have summarised in paragraphs 5.79 and 5.80
above the evidence of the cursory investigation and the derisorily
inadequate disciplinary action taken. Irving, in Goebbels, ignores these
deficiencies.
Oops!
--
"Pissing in the swimming pool when you are in the water will get you
nowhere. Do it from from a 10 meter springboard and everybody will
notice you!" (Werner Knoll, Surrey's Leading Revisionist Scholar)
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org
Kurt Knoll
and London. The details of why and how could all be read in German news
papers from 1918 till 1939. Unfortunally this news paper articles about it
are forbidden to be re printed in German news papers of today.
Kurt Knoll.
"RST News" <D2Za...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:73d22883-4e00-42dc...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Lars Braesicke
> It was the Jews who did call for an boycott of German bossiness in
> newyork and London. The details of why and how could all be read in
> German news papers from 1918 till 1939. Unfortunally this news paper
> articles about it are forbidden to be re printed in German news
> papers of today.
Well, thou old Nazi fart, thy repititions won't help neither thee nor
thy lies.
Lars
Kenneth McVay OBC
The Poster Boy of Holocaust Revisionism, Kurt Knoll,
the reigning Village Idiot of Kitimat, polished
his Pikelhaube, fluffed his Coal Black SS Totenkopf
Tutu with Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter and <kkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It was the Jews who did call for an boycott of German bossiness in newyork
>and London. The details of why and how could all be read in German news
>papers from 1918 till 1939. Unfortunally this news paper articles about it
>are forbidden to be re printed in German news papers of today.
What have your comments got to do with the NAZI orchestrated pogrom, Frau
Pikelhaube?
(Why reprint them, Frau Pikelhaube, since the originals can be read in many
European university libraries?)
89 Statements Demonstrating Leading Revisionist Scholar Kurt Knoll's
strict adherence to the high intellectual standards of Holocaust denial:
(See http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/k/knoll-kurt/ for the first 85)
(Honest, Folks, I'm not making them up!)
86. "You do have very primitive educating..."
<IP8bk.53552$Jx.17394@pd7urf1no>, July 3, 2008
87. "SO we do live in an a Domicratie everyone should haue the
Fight for Hits opinions. It is only the Jew. that are Full of
deceit and victimize Anyone that critics their holocaust. Kurt
Knoll. How ist this for charcter asement you two faced parasite.
Cut or channgig somenoce reply is a jewish thing but certenly
not our way. Kurt Knoll" <vJ1gk.11534$nD.2983@pd7urf1no>, July
18, 2008
88. "Go and play with your noodle you brain will not be able to
handle you phisical strees." <fLphk.23437$nD.18511@pd7urf1no>,
July 22, 2008
89. "Ther you go Fuckface i know i will have a lot of fun wwith you.
Have one of your German speaking fiend translate what i am saying
here" einsin einse geht nicht da haole ich mir eine heunter.
<F%uhk.23746$nD.16989@pd7urf1no>, July 22, 2008
I'll Always Be Here
news:fZljk.99240$kx.34475@pd7urf3no:
> It was the Jews who did call for an boycott of German bossiness in
> newyork and London.
No they didn't.
The details of why and how could all be read in
> German news papers from 1918 till 1939.
How do you know?
> Unfortunally this news paper articles about it are forbidden to be re
> printed in German news papers of today.
If they are forbidden to be reprinted, why are they in all german
universities and how do you know what they say?
Frank Arthur
"RST News" <D2Za...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:73d22883-4e00-42dc...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> http://judicial-inc.biz/n.,iig1.jpg
>
>
> A Clash Of Revisionists
>
> An odd clash between David Irving and Ingrid Weckert over what
> really
> happened at Kristallnacht. Weckert's stance is, Kristallnacht was
> basically a 'Hate Hoax', perpetrated by the Jews, and exaggerated by
> Zionist newspapers,
If it weren't for the constant reminders by neo-Nazis, Holocaust
deniers and assorted demented Jew-haters we might forget about WWII
and what the Germans did there.No modern,technically advanced nation
in the world ever brought so much destruction,murder, torture,
suffering and human degradation than Germans under the Nazi banner
during that historical era.No other people ever financed, organized
and built gas chambers & crematoria dedicated to the widespread
slaughter of huge numbers of human beings. No other country in the
world organized a rail transportation system dedicated to rounding
up,primarily Jews specifically, to be delivered to various
concentration camps for gassing to death or working to death ordinary
innocent civillians for no other reason except their ethnicity.No
other people, than Germans, ever organized the removal of gold teeth
from the cadavers, nor has any other harvest female human hair to be
sold for industrial purposes of the German war machine. Germans paid
for their support of Nazism and Hitler by having their cities
destroyed, surrendered unconditionallY,occupied and forever in history
suffer an indelible stain for their barbarism forever. Because of
their invasion of Russia- believed by the meglomaniac Hitler,"would
take Russia in 9 months"- resulted in Russia becoming one of the
largest military & nuclear powers in the world. Three generations of
Germans are and have been a democracy by choice and distance
themselves from their horrible past. Only the remnant dregs of wannabe
Nazis or fellow illusionists, who glory in the "good old days of
carnage" glorify Hitler and continue to hate Jews.
Germany's Chancellor(freely elected by the German people) Angela
Merkel, addressed the Knesset, Israel's parliament, during a special
session of the Knesset in Jerusalem.
She said,"Germany and Israel are linked "in a very special way" by the
memory of the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed under
Nazi Germany and its allies in World War II, she said in the first
address a German chancellor has ever made to the Knesset.
"The Holocaust fills us with shame," she said. "I bow my head before
the survivors and I bow my head before you in tribute to the fact that
you were able to survive."
Anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia "must never take root again in
Germany or in Europe," she said, and vowed to battle any flare-ups."
Those Jew haters also hate Chancellor Merkel and consider the
democratic German people fools too.
Robert Cohen
the turning points.
Revisionists-deniers obviously do not accept a WIKIPEDIA narrative.
Here is an analogy:
I suppose that WW I was precipitated by an asssassination while
complex historical factors & conditions leading up to it.
Thus, I suppose that Crystal Night for apologists has been a product
of an angry Jew a la the Paris assassination.
The nuanced public disagreement amongst revisers came about perhaps
because the assassination rationalism by itself is so thin.
Eugene Holman
<kkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It was the Jews who did call for an boycott of German bossiness in newyork
> and London.
Warum betraf dieser Boykott die Juden in Norwegen, Griechenland, und
Litauen? Halte ich Kurt Knoll für einen blöden Hund, habe ich die
Berechtigung alle den Namen Kurt tragenden Leute in der ganzen Welt
umzubringen?
> The details of why and how could all be read in German news
> papers from 1918 till 1939.
Während dieser Zeitlang ist Deutschland wortgetreu auferstanden aus
Ruinen. Der Boykott hat diese Entwicklung kaum gehindert.
> Unfortunally this news paper articles about it
> are forbidden to be re printed in German news papers of today.
Mensch, wie du spinnst! Man braucht solche Artikel nicht wiederzudrücken,
weil sie jedem sie zu lesen wollenden in der Universitätsbibliothek zur
Verfügung stehen.
> Kurt Knoll.
<ausgescnitten>
Mit deutschem Gruß,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
<kkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It was the Jews who did call for an boycott of German bossiness in newyork
> and London.
Warum betraf dieser Boykott die Juden in Norwegen, Griechenland und
Litauen? Halte ich Kurt Knoll für einen blöden Hund, habe ich die
Berechtigung alle den Namen Kurt tragenden Leute in der ganzen Welt
umzubringen?
> The details of why and how could all be read in German news
> papers from 1918 till 1939.
Während dieser Zeitlang ist Deutschland wortgetreu auferstanden aus
Ruinen. Der Boykott hat diese Entwicklung kaum gehindert.
> Unfortunally this news paper articles about it
> are forbidden to be re printed in German news papers of today.
Mensch, wie du spinnst! Man braucht solche Artikel nicht wiederzudrücken,
weil sie jedem sie zu lesen wollenden in jeder deutschen
Kurt Knoll
the right to read all the rhetoric that went on in the German and British
news papers. Can you tell us what German news paper ever did have the right
to re publish what was written these articles again after 1945 and in full
context.
Kurt Knoll.
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2907...@mobile-hupnet30-156.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
Kurt Knoll
im Ausland aufgerufen haben.
Kurt Knoll.
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2907...@mobile-hupnet30-156.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
I'll Always Be Here
> There you go Eugene. For us to come to a full understanding we should
> have the right to read all the rhetoric that went on in the German and
> British news papers.
Certainly, that's why you should read them online if you are too cheap to
go to germany.
Can you tell us what German news paper ever did
> have the right to re publish what was written these articles again after
> 1945 and in full context.
All of them. Can you tell us what german papers did not have the right to
refuse to print?
I'll Always Be Here
Kurt Knoll
always been to discredit anyone who critics your holocaust. For instance you
and your brethrens have us believe that only approved and by approved i mean
approved from your side historians are the experts. You game is about the
same as in court cases where the objectivity is always to discredit the
witnesses for the defence. Why should we trust a dishonest despicable
parasites like your kind.
Kurt Knoll
> In article <zOydnSMg0p_-VRPV...@giganews.com>, "B. H. Cramer"
> <Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
>
> <nothing>
>
> Shooting blanks, enh?
>
> The Jews never had any particular interest in David Irving until he
> publicly embraced hardcore Holocaust denial at the press conference held
> in conjunction with the publication of the pseudo-scientific *Leuchter
> Report* back in 1988.
>
> On the other hand, the community of academic historians, German
> right-wingers who thought that he was too gung-ho for their cause than was
> politically expedient, as well as some of the people David Irving has
> chosen to write about, most noticeably Commander Jack Broome of convoy
> PQ-17, who regarded him as a falsifier of history and worse, and initiated
> a successful libel suit against him, have hated the man's guts since the
> 1960s.
>
> Why don't you tell the whole truth?
>
> Certain Jews were indeed happy to see David Irving get his due, but during
> his career the man has pissed off the community of academic historians,
> officers in the Royal Navy, the Deutsche Nationale Partei, the publishers
> of his books that have now had to be withdrawn from sale and pulped, the
> British community of trial lawyers, which he tried to upstage, as well as
> the American, Australian, Austrian, German, New Zealand, and Polish
> governments. This is a man with a list of enemies a mile long. Even his
> daughter and brother have stated publicly that they abhore his views.
>
> His downfall was the result of his own hubris, the consequence of his
> having initiated a frivolous and unwinnable libel suit against a
> representative of the community of academic historians and a deep-pocketed
> multinational corporation without having the common sense to have his case
> presented in court by a competent lawyer or supported by credible
> witnesses. David Irving is unquestionably the author of his own undoing.
> All in all, the Jews played a relatively peripheral role in his
> professional suicide. It is the community of professional historians,
> rather than the Jews, that took delicious pleasure in David Irving being
> revealed to the world for what he is: a charlatan, a malpractioner of the
> historian's profession, and a big-time, load-mouthed, phoney. The man is
> enough of a showman to have given those who detest him, but nevertheless
> love to watch him shoot himself in the foot, an encore by sneaking into
> Austria illegally and with an outstanding arrest warrant, getting caught,
> and being duly tried, sentenced, and imprisoned.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
I'll Always Be Here
> Eugene we are not from yesterday but you are. Certainly your main diet
> has always been to discredit anyone who critics your holocaust.
Your main diet has been fairy tales and lies. Not to mention the
occassional attempt to bully people by calling them nasty names.
For
> instance you and your brethrens have us believe that only approved and
> by approved i mean approved from your side historians are the experts.
Provide your own experts. Is leuchter your hero?
> You game is about the same as in court cases where the objectivity is
> always to discredit the witnesses for the defence.
Like Irving?
Why should we trust a
> dishonest despicable parasites like your kind.
Because the kurt knolls of the world will never, ever tell the truth.
Eugene Holman
<kkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Eugene we are not from yesterday but you are.
Man wagt in der Gesellschaft anständiger Leuten nicht zu sagen, wo du
hergekommen bist.
> Certainly your main diet has
> always been to discredit anyone who critics your holocaust.
Not at all. I have patiently read through the turgid writings of David
Irving, the jew-droppingly inane excuses for engineering reports produced
by Fred Leuchter, the assorted puerilities and imbecilities of Ernst
Zündel, the historically shallow but slickly written articles of Mark
Weber, the logic- and fact-free, vulgarity-laced spewings of Ben Cramer,
and the vicious assaults on the English and German languages that you post
so liberally. I do not have to go out of my way to discredit such writers
because they do such a good job of discrediting themselves.
> For instance you
> and your brethrens have us believe that only approved and by approved i mean
> approved from your side historians are the experts.
Not at all, when the leading figure on your side makes it quite explicit
that he is *not* an expert.
Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day001.htm
<quote>
I have never held myself out to be a Holocaust expert, nor
have I written books about what is now called the Holocaust.
<deletions>
I have done my best to prepare the case that follows, but
I respectfully submit that I do not have any duty to become an
expert on the Holocaust, my Lord.
<deletions>
I have never claimed to be a Holocaust historian. As I have
said, I have no written no book about the Holocaust. I have written
no article about it. If I have spoken about it, it is usually
because somebody has asked me a question, I have been questioned
about it. On such occasions I have emphasised my lack of expertise
and I have expatiated only upon those areas with which I am familiar.
<deletions>
</quote>
Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day002.htm:
<quote>
<deletions>
Now, you heard me say in my opening statement, Mr Rampton,
that I am not an expert on the Holocaust. What I would now say
would be a figure without any value whatsoever.
<deletions>
Q. [Rampton] What you do you say about Sobibor, Treblinka,
Belzec and Chelmno?"
A. [Irving] Nothing at all. I am not an expert.
<deletions>
</quote>
Thus, we are confronted with people who make it manifestly clear that they
are not experts, even though they are trying to debunk the research and
conclusions reached by people who *are* experts.
> You game is about the
> same as in court cases where the objectivity is always to discredit the
> witnesses for the defence. Why should we trust a dishonest despicable
> parasites like your kind.
Why, Kurt, should anybody give more credence to the conclusions reached by
a person who willingly admits that he has spewed off about an issue that
he willing admits that he has never studied in depth and knows nothing
about than to those reached by a person who has devoted a good part of his
professional life to researching the issue in question? If you had a
serius disease, would you trust the word of some guy selling snake oil
from a pushcart on the street over the word of a competent medical
specialist?
David Irving admitted willingly that he has never made a formal study of
the Holocaust and lacks any expertise in the area. He also showed that he
was ignorant enough about the legal definition of libel to initiate a
libel trial against exceedingly strong and well-heeled defendants without
bothering to collect evidence, find witnesses to support his case, or even
hire a courtroom lawyer to argue his case before the court. Fred Leuchter,
despite having done some practical work with execution technology, has no
degree in engineering or science and demonstrated to a Canadian judge that
he knows virtually nothing about the different manner in which cynaide
affects cold as opposed to warm-blooded creatures and thus was inqualified
to give testimony as an expert witness on gas chamber functionality.
Nobody needs to discredit such people when they do such a capital job of
discrediting themselves.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
B. H. Cramer
Oh dear.
Are you actually Skunky Evans posting as Holman? You seem to be as full of
hatred, distortions and downright lies as is that little twerp.
Eugene Holman
<Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
<deletions>
> > David Irving admitted willingly that he has never made a formal study of
> > the Holocaust and lacks any expertise in the area. He also showed that he
> > was ignorant enough about the legal definition of libel to initiate a
> > libel trial against exceedingly strong and well-heeled defendants without
> > bothering to collect evidence, find witnesses to support his case, or even
> > hire a courtroom lawyer to argue his case before the court. Fred Leuchter,
> > despite having done some practical work with execution technology, has no
> > degree in engineering or science and demonstrated to a Canadian judge that
> > he knows virtually nothing about the different manner in which cynaide
> > affects cold as opposed to warm-blooded creatures and thus was inqualified
> > to give testimony as an expert witness on gas chamber functionality.
> > Nobody needs to discredit such people when they do such a capital job of
> > discrediting themselves.
> >
> > <deletions>
<deletions>
> Oh dear.
>
> Are you actually Skunky Evans posting as Holman? You seem to be as full of
> hatred, distortions and downright lies as is that little twerp.
I am actually Holman posting as Holman, thank you very much.
I have not expressed hatred for David Irving; I pity the man.
I have not distorted a thing: I quoted him as having stated to the court
that he lacks the expertise to say anything worthwhile about the
Holocaust. What he subsequently said about it has to be evaluated with
this in mind.
I have not lied. either generically or downrightly.
It is a fact that David Irving initiated what turned out to be a frivolous
libel case aganst strong and well-heeled defendants without having a clear
understanding of the legal definition of libel, bothering to collect
evidence, finding witnesses to support his case (the two historians who
testified for him had to be summoned and informed the court that they were
largely in agreement with Deborah Lipstadt's assessment of David Irving's
incompetence as a historian), or even hiring a lawyer to present his case.
It is as much a fact that Fred Leuchter demonstrated himself to lack an
understanding of the different manner in which cynaide affects cold as
opposed to warm-blooded creatures and thus was disqualified by the
presiding judge to give testimony as an expert witness on gas chamber
functionality.
You claim that what I wrote is "full of hatred, distortions and downright
lies" demonstrates itself to be full of hatred, distortions, and downright
lies.
Too bad for you, cupcake,
Eugene Holman
B. H. Cramer
Which is, in itself, hatred, you patronising little twerp.
>
> I have not distorted a thing: I quoted him as having stated to the court
> that he lacks the expertise to say anything worthwhile about the
> Holocaust. What he subsequently said about it has to be evaluated with
> this in mind.
You distort most of what you post, yougenie.
>
> I have not lied. either generically or downrightly.
Perhaps it's unintentional, but you most certainly make with the porkies.
Hatred, distortions and downright lies snipped.
Eugene Holman
<Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
<deletions>
> >
> > I have not expressed hatred for David Irving; I pity the man.
>
> Which is, in itself, hatred, you patronising little twerp.
How so? Pityng somebody means that you feel sorrow or compassion for the
misfortune of anothr person. David Irving has been the author of his own
misfortune so many times that one cannot help feeling sadness for him and
those whose purgatory it has been to share their lives with him.
> > I have not distorted a thing: I quoted him as having stated to the court
> > that he lacks the expertise to say anything worthwhile about the
> > Holocaust. What he subsequently said about it has to be evaluated with
> > this in mind.
>
> You distort most of what you post, yougenie.
You live to make this claim, but you havce never been able to produce even
one specific example. To you, a person who does not regard the Jews as the
masters of the known universe and the source of every important event is
"not telling the whole truth" or "destorting". I don't regard people who
disagree with you concerning the omnipotency and omnipresence of the Jews
as liars or distorters.
> > I have not lied, either generically or downrightly.
>
> Perhaps it's unintentional, but you most certainly make with the porkies.
>
> Hatred, distortions and downright lies snipped.
Yes, because you cannot deal with them.
David Irving explicitly informed the court that he lacked expertise on the
Holocaust and that what he had said or written about it was of no great
value or significance. This is an open admission that he was not
responsible the sloppy scholarship, inane conclusions, and outright lies
that Deborah Lipstadt had accused him of having made in his writings about
the Holocaust.
Paraphrased, what we have is a situation where:
1. David Irving writes and speaks massive amount of bullshit and lies
about a subject that he has never seriously researched in the hope of
stirring up controversy, hooking a few gullible people, and making big
bucks.
2. Deborah Lipstadt publishes a book accusing David Irving of having
written bullshit and lies about a subject that he has never seriously
researched in the hope of stirring up controversy, hooking perhaps more
than just a few gullible people, and making big bucks.
3. David Irving sues Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher of having libeled
him by spreading the word that he has written bullshit and lies about a
subject that he has never seriously researched in the hope of stirring up
controversy, hooking a gullible people, and making big bucks.
4. David Irving's decides that he will use the British court system to
silence legitimate criticism from the community of academic historians of
his flagrant, systematic, and unethical professional misconduct so that he
can continue to make a living churning out yet more bullshit and lies
about a subject that he has never seriously researched in the hope of
stirring up controversy, hooking gullible people, and making big bucks,
both from his writings as well as in the form of the generous damages to
his professional "reputation" that he hopes this case will reward him.
5. David Irving informs the court on the first day of the trial that he
lacks the expertise or even the interest to investigate the subject about
which he has written and publicly spoken that the community of
professional historians has judged to be bullshit and lies. He goes so far
as to inform the court that what he has written is of little if any value
due to his lack of the requisite expertise and his sytematically
mendacious historiographical methodology.
6. David Irving, having as much confidence in his ability to play the role
of world famous courtroom lawyer as he does in his ability to play the
role of world famous pontificator of pronouncements on the Holocaust, does
not go to the trouble to hire a lawyer to plead his case in court, is
unable to produce a single example of a defamatory statement made in
Deborah Lipstadt's book concerning his incompetence and dishonesty as a
historian that is demonstrably false or malevolent and thus falls within
the legal definition of libel. Prof. Lipstadt's defense team produces
dozens more examples to buttress their case that Irving is systematically
mendacious, not just monumentally sloppy. To top it off, the two
historians that David Irving has to have summoned to the court to testify
on his behalf inform the court that they are totally in agreement with
Prof. Lipstatdt that what David Irving has written about the Holocaust is
lies and bullshit.
7. David Irving is "amazed" and "shocked" when the court rules against
him, since everyone, including David Irving himself and his witnesses,
agree that what he has written about the Holocaust has no basis in serious
research and is mostly bullshit and lies. The court chides Deborah
Lipstadt for having been far too easy in her criticism of the blighter.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
B. H. Cramer
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> In article <L7GdnS8vIubnrA3V...@giganews.com>, "B. H. Cramer"
> <Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> <deletions>
>> >
>> > I have not expressed hatred for David Irving; I pity the man.
>>
>> Which is, in itself, hatred, you patronising little twerp.
>
> How so? Pityng somebody means that you feel sorrow or compassion for the
> misfortune of anothr person.
That's not the way you "pity" him, you patronising little twerp.
>David Irving has been the author of his own
> misfortune so many times that one cannot help feeling sadness for him and
> those whose purgatory it has been to share their lives with him.
What horseshit. The fucking yids have been trying to destroy him for
decades.
>
>> > I have not distorted a thing: I quoted him as having stated to the
>> > court
>> > that he lacks the expertise to say anything worthwhile about the
>> > Holocaust. What he subsequently said about it has to be evaluated with
>> > this in mind.
>>
>> You distort most of what you post, yougenie.
>
> You live to make this claim, but you havce never been able to produce even
> one specific example. To you, a person who does not regard the Jews as the
> masters of the known universe and the source of every important event is
> "not telling the whole truth" or "destorting". I don't regard people who
> disagree with you concerning the omnipotency and omnipresence of the Jews
> as liars or distorters.
Ferchrissake, yougenie. You have distorted in the above.
>
>> > I have not lied, either generically or downrightly.
>>
>> Perhaps it's unintentional, but you most certainly make with the porkies.
>>
>> Hatred, distortions and downright lies snipped.
>
> Yes, because you cannot deal with them.
Snipped again and NO, not because I cannot deal with them. Because you look
like a dickhead by repeating them.
Kenneth McVay OBC
Eugene Holman <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote:
[...]
>I am actually Holman posting as Holman, thank you very much.
Give it up, McFee, you're busted! Admit it - you fly to Finland every
afternoon just to be Holman.
Kurt Knoll
or call it documentations. What do you think he has to be an expert for.
Your intentions are to discredit anyone that dares to question your
hollowsaga. Give us one good reason why we should trust people like you.
Kurt Knoll.
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> In article <L7GdnS8vIubnrA3V...@giganews.com>, "B. H. Cramer"
> <Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> <deletions>
>> >
>> > I have not expressed hatred for David Irving; I pity the man.
>>
>> Which is, in itself, hatred, you patronising little twerp.
>
> How so? Pitying somebody means that you feel sorrow or compassion for the
> misfortune of another person. David Irving has been the author of his own
> misfortune so many times that one cannot help feeling sadness for him and,
> particularly, for those whose purgatory it has been to share their lives
> with him.
>
>> > I have not distorted a thing: I quoted him as having stated to the
>> > court
>> > that he lacks the expertise to say anything worthwhile about the
>> > Holocaust. What he subsequently said about it has to be evaluated with
>> > this in mind.
>>
>> You distort most of what you post, yougenie.
>
> You love to make this claim, but you have never, ever been able to produce
> even
> one specific example. To you, a person who does not regard the Jews as the
> masters of the known universe and the source of every significant event is
> "not telling the whole truth" or "distorting". I don't regard people who
> disagree with you concerning the omnipotency and omnipresence of the Jews
> as liars or distorters.
>
>> > I have not lied, either generically or downrightly.
>>
>> Perhaps it's unintentional, but you most certainly make with the porkies.
>>
>> Hatred, distortions and downright lies snipped.
>
> Yes, because you cannot deal with what I wrote.
>
> David Irving explicitly informed the court that he lacked expertise on the
> Holocaust and that what he had said or written about it was of no great
> value or significance. This is an open admission that he distanced himself
> from the sloppy scholarship, inane conclusions, and outright lies that
> Deborah Lipstadt had accused him of having made in his writings and
> pronouncements about the Holocaust.
>
> Paraphrased, what we have is a situation where:
>
> 1. David Irving writes and speaks massive amounts of bullshit and lies
> about a subject that he has never seriously researched in the hope of
> stirring up controversy, hooking a few gullible people, and making big
> bucks.
>
> 2. Deborah Lipstadt publishes a book in the United States accusing David
> Irving of having written bullshit and lies about a subject that he has
> never seriously
> researched in the hope of stirring up controversy, hooking perhaps more
> than just a few gullible people, and making big bucks.
>
> 3. David Irving waits until the book is published by a major publisher in
> the United Kingdom, his home turf, where libel laws are more
> plaintiff-friendly than those of the United States, suing Deborah Lipstadt
> and her publisher of having libeled him by spreading the word that he has
> written bullshit and lies about a
> subject that he has never seriously researched in the hope of stirring up
> controversy, hooking gullible people, and making big bucks.
>
> 4. David Irving's objective is to use the British court system to
> silence legitimate criticism from the community of academic historians of
> his flagrant, systematic, and unethical professional misconduct so that he
> can continue to make a living churning out yet more bullshit and lies
> about a subject that he has never seriously researched in the hope of
> stirring up controversy, hooking gullible people, and making big bucks,
> both from his writings as well as in the form of the generous damages to
> his professional "reputation" that he hopes this case will reward him.
>
> 5. David Irving informs the court on the first day of the trial that he
> lacks the expertise or even the interest to investigate the subject about
> which he has written and publicly spoken that the community of
> professional historians has judged to be bullshit and lies. He goes so far
> as to inform the court that what he has written about it is of little if
> any value due to his lack of the requisite expertise.
Kenneth McVay OBC
Kurt Knoll <kkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>David Irving is a writer and it is based what he read from Various records
>or call it documentations. What do you think he has to be an expert for.
>Your intentions are to discredit anyone that dares to question your
>hollowsaga. Give us one good reason why we should trust people like you.
David Irving is a proven liar, racist and antisemite. Your intentions are
to credit anyone that publishes lies, evasions and distortions. Give us
one good reason why we should trust people like you.
In the recently concluded libel trial wherein British faux historian
David Irving attempted to censor an American historian,
Judge Gray said (Excerpts - see URL for complete document):
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-13-01.html
"I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the Defendants
Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively
examined, reveals."
"I have concluded that Irving has misrepresented the evidence."
"I accept the evidence of Evans and Longerich that this picture
seriously misrepresents the available contemporaneous evidence."
"To write, as Irving did, that Hitler was "totally unaware of what
Goebbels had done" is in my view to pervert the evidence."
"David Irving brought what turned out to be an unjustified
libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and lost. One factor was
that the charge of libel was demonstrated to be unfounded,
the other was that David Irving decided to plead his own case
in court and grandstanded instead of focusing on substantive
issues.
"He lost, and the entire triaL is a matter of public record
that he himself spreads through his website.
He also decided to go to Austria, fully knowing that he was
banned from the country and that a warrant was out for his
arrest for violating laws that he admits that he violated.
Once again, all of this is a matter of public record, and
the public is entitled to draw their own conclusions about
the man's motives and sanity.
"Sane people do not falsify and mistranslate historical
documents and then try to silence critics who point this
out. Sane people do not announce in advance that they are
going to travel to a country from which they have been
banned and with an arrest warrant for them outstanding.
Sane people do not plead guilty to violating a lwas, and
then scream "foul" when they are punished, nor do they
violate the law again from their prison cell in a
telephoned interview." (Eugene Holman, alt.revisionism,
March 5, 2006)
--
"All shit like you have is lies and smears. Shit like you
can't refute what I post so shit like you resort to cheap
personal attacks and you wonder why kike filth is hated so much!
(Scott Bradbury, Bellville's leading revisionist scholar)
Kurt Knoll
Jewish masters. Anyone who does not agree with your holocaust fabrication is
a holocaust denier. If people like you or your masters would be more sincere
nobody will ask the question they do.
Kurt Knoll.
"Kenneth McVay OBC" <kmc...@shell.vex.net> wrote in message
news:qsGdnZ59sJ6KCw3V...@vex.net...
Kurt Knoll
not Jewish allowed to verify and check it for authenticity.
Kurt Knoll.
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-3007...@mobile-hupnet30-156.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> In article <IpadnTv5yPob0A3V...@giganews.com>, "B. H. Cramer"
> <Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
>
> <deletions>
>
>> >> You distort most of what you post, yougenie.
>> >
>> > You love to make this claim, but you have never, ever been able to
>> > produce
>> > even
>> > one specific example.
>>
>> I don't have to, yougenie. You do it for me.
>
> Okay. Here is an alternative, undistorted, summary of David Irving's
> misfortunes à la Cramer:
>
> 1. In the 1960s a young British university dropout who has learned German
> working in Germany as a metal-worker publishes a sensational book on the
> bombing of Dresden by the Allies in which he argues that this event was a
> war crime of the same magnitude as the Nazis' persecution and mass-murder
> of the Jews.
>
> 2. His work comes to the attention of infuential individuals in the
> international Jewish power structure. They are angered that this amateur
> historian is poaching on the White guilt-trip monopoly of their recently
> set-up Holocaust milch cow, and vow to destroy him.
>
> 3. Irving continues to grab headlines with his sensational claims about WW
> II history. Unfortunately for him, much of his research is shown to be
> flawed, and more than once the conclusions that he draws on the basis of
> his flawed research see him winding up in the courtroom being successfully
> sued for libel.
>
> 4. Jewish circles, although keeping watch on him, do not take the task of
> destroying him particularly seriously, since David irving has a strong
> tendency to shoot himself in the foot.
>
> 5. During the 1970s David Irving publishes a series of books, most
> notably, *Hitler's War*, in which he does not deny the historicity of the
> Nazis' mass murder of Jews, some of it in gas chambers, but does deny that
> Hitler was totally unaware of it. International Jewish sircles take note
> of this, but regards such an extreme position as another example of the
> amateur historian shooting himself in the foot.
>
> 6. During the 1980s David Irving forges links with German right-wing
> extremists. As a German-speaking Briton, he is given more latitude than
> Germans would be allowed in publicly downplaying the magnitude of the
> Nazis' persecution of Jews and of Hitler's role in it. Once again,
> international Jewish circles eagerly await his self-destruction, but begin
> to be alarmed that his message is gaining followers in Germany and other
> countries.
>
> 7. In 1983 David Irving stole the headlines by crashing a press conference
> in Hamburg where a prominent British historian was denouncing the alleged
> Hitler diaries as a forgery, to claim that they were indeed a forgery. He
> was ejected from the conference by security. A week later he reversed
> himself and claimed the diaries to be genuine. When they were finally
> revealed unequivocally to be a forgery, he reversed his position again.
> International Jewish circles took note and regarded it as yet another
> episode that would contribute to his eventual self destruction. Amazingly,
> David Irving was adept enough at playing the media not to lose any
> credibility that he still had as a historian, even if a non-academic one.
> His right-wing contacts in Germany, observing his increasingly erratic and
> unpredictable behavior, began to distance themselves from him, regarding
> him as a liability rather than an asset.
>
> 8. With his reputation fading and credibility in doubt, Irving publishes
> his book *Chuchill's War* in 1987. This book depicted Churchill as an
> alcoholic warmonger and puppet of the Jews. The book argues that Churchill
> and Roosevelt, not Hitler, were the true villains of WW II and, insofar as
> it is possible to speak of a Holocaust, it was the Germans, not the Jews,
> who were its victims. Initially, international Jewish circles greet Davd
> Irving's book with glee, thinking that its conclusions are so off the wall
> that he had finally self-destructed. Amazingly, however, a surprising
> number of gullible and historically illiterate people swallow his argument
> hook, line, and sinker. Academic historians and international Jewish
> circles begin to hate and even fear him; the media and general public make
> him into a minor celebrity.
>
> 9. In 1988 Irving testified at the trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto. There
> he became acquainted with hardcore Holocaust deniers Ernst Zündel, Robert
> Faurisson, and Fred Leuchter. Speaking at the press conference announcing
> the publication of the *Leuchter Report*, Irving hailed it as a
> revolutionary work that fundamentally changed the manner in which the Nazi
> mass-murder of the Jews would be analyzed by future historians. Although
> never going so far as to deny the historicity of such mass murders, David
> Irving claimed that they were isolated atrocities committed by rogue
> soldiers and not instantiations of systematic policy. More importantly, he
> claimed, Leuchter's work proved that all the stories of mass execution gas
> chambers were nothing more than wartime propaganda with no basis in
> scientific fact. Analysis of the walls and ruins of the structures at
> Auschwitz and Majdanek alleged to have been gas chambers showed that they
> lacked all of the attributes that are defining characteristics of an
> American penal gas chamber running according to the regulations that were
> valid for executions by posion gas in the United States during the 1980s
> and thus could not have been used for mass-gassings. Once again,
> historians and international Jewish circles thought that David Irving had
> self destructed by lining up with this disreputable triumvirate, but a
> surprising number of gullible people were taken in. David Irving, although
> never a genuine Holocaust denier himself, was a historian not regarded as
> a flake who accepted this position. David Irving thoroughly revised his
> *Hitler's War*, removing all mentions of gas chambers as a tool of
> mass-murder.
>
> 10. Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt found the increased popularity and
> credibility of David Irving within Holocaust denier and history-buff
> circles to be as disturbing as it was potentially dangerous. She published
> a book, *Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory*
> in which she gave several examples of how David irving lied about and
> destorted history to construct specious arguments defending Hitler as "the
> best friend the Jews had" in the Third Reich. She called him the most
> dangerous personality in the Holocaust denial movement because he was the
> only one anyone took remotely seriously as some kind of reputable scholar.
>
>
> 11. The book dealt specifically with David Irving's activities as a
> hardcore Holocaust "revisionist" between 1988 and 1993. It was originally
> published in a small edition by an obscure university press in the United
> States, but it subsequently came out in a mass-run popular edition
> published in the UK by Penguin Books Ltd. David Irving used the
> opportunity afforded by its publication in plaintiff-friendly-libel-law
> Britain to sue Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books Ltd for libel.
>
> 12. The Jews saw their opportunity to destroy David Irving. They collected
> a massive defense fund and hired the best team of lawyers and academic
> historians that money could buy. In David Irving's writings they found
> dozens of examples of the kind of lies and distortions about history that
> Deborah Lipstadt had referred to and exemplified in her book.
>
> 13. David Irving also solicited funds, but he did not use the money that
> he obtained to hire legal council or any kind of a defense team. Clad in
> his flashy Savile Row suit, David Irving set out to defend himself in the
> courtroom.
>
> 14. His defense was based on his acknowledgement that he had written and
> spoken about the Holocaust when asked to do so, but that he had no
> expertise in the field and whatever he had written and spoken about it was
> not to be taken seriously.
>
> 15. The Jew-financed juggernaut produced example after example of David
> Irving's mendacious scholarship, and David Irving was unable to produce
> any convincing evidence that such phenomena as fudging dates or
> manipulating translations were the result of human error rather than of an
> overall plan. Unfortunately for David irving, either was he able to prove
> otherwise. The judge, after having more than thirty examples of David
> Irving's agenda-driven historiography analyzed, concluded that they were
> examples of systematic behavior and not just simple errors. Deciding that
> the examples that the defense still had in store would just be more of the
> same, he ruled against Irving.
>
> 16. Thus did the Jews, who had nothing to do with David Irving's decision
> to launch a frivolous libel suit, but attacked it with feeding-frenzy like
> fury when it was a going concern, destroy poor, innocent David Irving.
>
> 17. Since the Jews control all levels of the British legal system, the
> court of appeal upheld the verdict of the lower court and its crypto-Jew
> Judge Charles Gray (= Grau in German) and no appeal to the supreme court
> was allowed.
>
> 18. The Jews also tempted David Irving to give his fans an encore.
> Visiting him in a dream as a Wienerschnitzel, they tempted him to sneak
> into Austria, where there was a ban on his entering or being in the
> country as well as an outstanting arrest warrant, and duly be arrested,
> prosecuted, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned.
>
> Yes, the Jews were not only out to destroy David Irving; they succeeded
> quite well in their nefarious project.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
Kenneth McVay OBC
The Poster Boy of Holocaust Revisionism, Kurt Knoll,
the reigning Village Idiot of Kitimat, polished
his Pikelhaube, fluffed his Coal Black SS Totenkopf
Tutu with Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter and <kkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Always the same tune Kenneth who shall we trust a shenanigan like you or you
>Jewish masters. Anyone who does not agree with your holocaust fabrication is
>a holocaust denier. If people like you or your masters would be more sincere
>nobody will ask the question they do.
Always the same tune, Kurt. Who shall we trust, a proven liar like you, or
people who write the truth? Anyone who does not agree with your
knollocaust fabrications is intelligent enough to recognize a moron when
they see one. If people like you or your masters would be more sincere,
nobody would laugh at you like they do.
90 Statements Demonstrating Leading Revisionist Scholar Kurt Knoll's
strict adherence to the high intellectual standards of Holocaust denial:
(See http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/k/knoll-kurt/ for the first 85)
(Honest, Folks, I'm not making them up!)
86. "You do have very primitive educating..."
<IP8bk.53552$Jx.17394@pd7urf1no>, July 3, 2008
87. "SO we do live in an a Domicratie everyone should haue the
Fight for Hits opinions. It is only the Jew. that are Full of
deceit and victimize Anyone that critics their holocaust. Kurt
Knoll. How ist this for charcter asement you two faced parasite.
Cut or channgig somenoce reply is a jewish thing but certenly
not our way. Kurt Knoll" <vJ1gk.11534$nD.2983@pd7urf1no>, July
18, 2008
88. "Go and play with your noodle you brain will not be able to
handle you phisical strees." <fLphk.23437$nD.18511@pd7urf1no>,
July 22, 2008
89. "Ther you go Fuckface i know i will have a lot of fun wwith you.
Have one of your German speaking fiend translate what i am saying
here" einsin einse geht nicht da haole ich mir eine heunter.
<F%uhk.23746$nD.16989@pd7urf1no>, July 22, 2008
90. "Really does anyone who writes about the holocaust industries
approved expert be." <yIJjk.41854$nD.10368@pd7urf1no>, July
29, 2008
--
"I am not stressed out since I can analyze
your holohoax in my urine." (Kurt Knoll,
Kitimat, B.C.'s Leading Revisionist Scholar)
The Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org/
RJ11
B. H. Cramer <Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
(angry rants snipped)
Still upset that your side lost, doper?
"Had Hitler won the war, the world would be a much better
place." --Posted by "Ben Cramer", Source: Message-ID
<ILudnfQdX6UCtfva...@giganews.com>.
RJ.
I'll Always Be Here
news:L7GdnS8vIubnrA3V...@giganews.com:
Strange reinterpretation of the word. But you are an expert speller and
grammarian (as well as a sailer of much faim).
Here is the real definition...it doesn't include the word hate/hatred
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
pit·y Audio Help [pit-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, plural pit·ies, verb, pit·ied, pit·y·ing.
–noun 1. sympathetic or kindly sorrow evoked by the suffering,
distress, or misfortune of another, often leading one to give relief or
aid or to show mercy: to feel pity for astarving child.
2. a cause or reason for pity, sorrow, or regret: What a pity you could
not go!
–verb (used with object) 3. to feel pity or compassion for; be sorry
for; commiserate with.
–verb (used without object) 4. to have compassion; feel pity.
—Idiom5. have or take pity. to show mercy or compassion.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME pite < OF pite, earlier pitet < L pietat- (s. of
pietas) piety]
—Synonyms 1. commiseration, compassion. See sympathy.
You are a liar of the same skill as kurt. I pity you.
>
>>
>> I have not distorted a thing: I quoted him as having stated to the
court
>> that he lacks the expertise to say anything worthwhile about the
>> Holocaust. What he subsequently said about it has to be evaluated with
>> this in mind.
>
> You distort most of what you post, yougenie.
Just like you distorted the meaning of the word "pity".
>>
>> I have not lied. either generically or downrightly.
>
> Perhaps it's unintentional, but you most certainly make with the
porkies.
And yet yours are so easy to document, aren't they?
I'll Always Be Here
> Eugene how many flaws are the in your holocaust documentations. Is
> anyone not Jewish allowed to verify and check it for authenticity.
> Kurt Knoll.
Kurt, how many flaws are in every one of your posts. Is anyone jewish or
not, allowed to verify and check it for authenticity? We are still
wondering why you censor us when we ask you how many people really died in
a single air raid on Nuremberg?
I'll Always Be Here
> David Irving is a writer
But not a historian.
and it is based what he read from Various
> records or call it documentations.
Based, but not accurated as your german judge ruled. Would you buy a book
on photography from someone who can't write the truth?
> What do you think he has to be an expert for.
Why do you think that an author shouldn't be an expert on a subject he is
writing about?
Your intentions are to discredit anyone that dares to
> question your hollowsaga.
Your intention is to discredit anyone that dares to question your
knollosaga.
Give us one good reason why we should trust
> people like you.
Because you always lie.
I'll Always Be Here
> Always the same tune Kenneth who shall we trust a shenanigan like you or
> you Jewish masters.
Always the same tune kurtsie. How can we trust a fabricator like you or
your holocaust industry masters?
> Anyone who does not agree with your holocaust fabrication is a holocaust
denier.
Anyone who does not agree with your knollosaga is a knollocaust denier.
If people like you or your masters
> would be more sincere nobody will ask the question they do.
If you would ever tell the truth, it would still be funny.
I'll Always Be Here
news:qfKdncIBXPzG0A3V...@giganews.com:
>
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
>> In article <L7GdnS8vIubnrA3V...@giganews.com>, "B. H.
>> Cramer" <Iyamh'r...@themoment.yo> wrote:
>>
>>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>>> news:holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
>> <deletions>
>>> >
>>> > I have not expressed hatred for David Irving; I pity the man.
>>>
>>> Which is, in itself, hatred, you patronising little twerp.
>>
>> How so? Pityng somebody means that you feel sorrow or compassion for
>> the misfortune of anothr person.
>
> That's not the way you "pity" him, you patronising little twerp.
Cramer the mind reader. It's a mitzvah.
>
>>David Irving has been the author of his own
>> misfortune so many times that one cannot help feeling sadness for him
>> and those whose purgatory it has been to share their lives with him.
>
> What horseshit. The fucking yids have been trying to destroy him for
> decades.
Apparently with Irvings complete help.
>
>>
>>> > I have not distorted a thing: I quoted him as having stated to the
>>> > court
>>> > that he lacks the expertise to say anything worthwhile about the
>>> > Holocaust. What he subsequently said about it has to be evaluated
>>> > with this in mind.
>>>
>>> You distort most of what you post, yougenie.
>>
>> You live to make this claim, but you havce never been able to produce
>> even one specific example. To you, a person who does not regard the
>> Jews as the masters of the known universe and the source of every
>> important event is "not telling the whole truth" or "destorting". I
>> don't regard people who disagree with you concerning the omnipotency
>> and omnipresence of the Jews as liars or distorters.
>
> Ferchrissake, yougenie. You have distorted in the above.
You mean you have provided one specific example?
>
>
>>
>>> > I have not lied, either generically or downrightly.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's unintentional, but you most certainly make with the
>>> porkies.
>>>
>>> Hatred, distortions and downright lies snipped.
>>
>> Yes, because you cannot deal with them.
>
> Snipped again and NO, not because I cannot deal with them. Because you
> look like a dickhead by repeating them.
>
>
>
Oh dear, such hatred you patronising little twerp.
Sara Salzman
kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
> In article <holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi>,
> Eugene Holman <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >I am actually Holman posting as Holman, thank you very much.
>
> Give it up, McFee, you're busted! Admit it - you fly to Finland every
> afternoon just to be Holman.
Now you're in trouble, McVay. You've given away the secret. Access to
the ZOG yacht will be taken away -- right about this year's Rosh
Hashanah Cruise to Nowhere.
--
"I don't know" can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous.
You can't answer "I don't know if that happened" about the Holocaust.
- Penn Jillette, 7/3/08
Kenneth McVay OBC
Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <dcmdnbVFDocoEQ3V...@vex.net>,
> kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>> In article <holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi>,
>> Eugene Holman <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >I am actually Holman posting as Holman, thank you very much.
>>
>> Give it up, McFee, you're busted! Admit it - you fly to Finland every
>> afternoon just to be Holman.
>
>Now you're in trouble, McVay. You've given away the secret. Access to
>the ZOG yacht will be taken away -- right about this year's Rosh
>Hashanah Cruise to Nowhere.
In a (Kosher) Pig's Ear, Thug Leader. The yacht's MINE this year! Without
it, I can't get the Ferrari to Monti Carlo in time for the Gran Prix, and
there's NO way I'm putting up with THAT crap.
The deniers are too stupid to figure it out, and they won't accept Nizkor
as a source, so I can pretty well say anything I want and they'll denounce
it. They HAVE to.
So moor the damned thing in Departure Bay like every other year and let me
get ON with it, TL. I'm goin' Nowhere, and there ain't NO way you can stop
me!
Ain't life grand?
B. H. Cramer
"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-4C9842...@news-40.giganews.com...
> In article <dcmdnbVFDocoEQ3V...@vex.net>,
> kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
>
>> In article <holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi>,
>> Eugene Holman <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >I am actually Holman posting as Holman, thank you very much.
>>
>> Give it up, McFee, you're busted! Admit it - you fly to Finland every
>> afternoon just to be Holman.
>
> Now you're in trouble, McVay. You've given away the secret. Access to
> the ZOG yacht will be taken away -- right about this year's Rosh
> Hashanah Cruise to Nowhere.
Do you know how childish this rubbish is?
Sara Salzman
kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
> In article <catamont-4C9842...@news-40.giganews.com>,
> Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >In article <dcmdnbVFDocoEQ3V...@vex.net>,
> > kmc...@shell.vex.net (Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <holman-3007...@ke-hupnet183-26.hupnet.helsinki.fi>,
> >> Eugene Holman <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >I am actually Holman posting as Holman, thank you very much.
> >>
> >> Give it up, McFee, you're busted! Admit it - you fly to Finland every
> >> afternoon just to be Holman.
> >
> >Now you're in trouble, McVay. You've given away the secret. Access to
> >the ZOG yacht will be taken away -- right about this year's Rosh
> >Hashanah Cruise to Nowhere.
>
> In a (Kosher) Pig's Ear, Thug Leader. The yacht's MINE this year! Without
> it, I can't get the Ferrari to Monti Carlo in time for the Gran Prix, and
> there's NO way I'm putting up with THAT crap.
>
> The deniers are too stupid to figure it out, and they won't accept Nizkor
> as a source, so I can pretty well say anything I want and they'll denounce
> it. They HAVE to.
>
> So moor the damned thing in Departure Bay like every other year and let me
> get ON with it, TL. I'm goin' Nowhere, and there ain't NO way you can stop
> me!
>
> Ain't life grand?
You talk tough, but you won't participate in the Passover Blood Drive.
:)
Kenneth McVay OBC
That's not fair. Just last year I submitted a comprehensive list of
Christian Children to ZOGCANWEST. Sure, I collected the standard $0.21 USD
per name, but I came through for you.
Lemme know when you want the lights turned off again, hear?
--
"People want to know all the facts whatever they are true
or not." (Kurt Knoll, Kitimat's Leading Revisionist Scholar
and all-round moron.)
Sara Salzman
B. H. Cramer
This shite is childish beyond belief, salzman.
But please don't let me stop you. It's enlightening.