Gordon Freedman Should Grow Himself a Pair of Testicles
hoffm...@delphi.com
gullibility about Talmud in the alt. revisionist thread, >>Goeths Arrest.<<
Recently however he communicated with me in secret via E-mail, seeking to debate
in that venue. Mr. Freedman, if your rejoinder is as good as you think, why dont
you post it in >>Goeths Arrest?<<
I do not debate >>in private<< because you have not engaged me as your private
tutor. Grow yourself a pair of testicles and post your inchoate
musings--hopefully exactly as you E-mailed them--and I shall deconstruct them
for the benefit of everyone, not just you.
Michael A. Hoffman II
hoffm...@delphi.com
taste of Mr. Steins record of prevarication.
In this thread, he must mimic my witticism about Gordon Freedman for his thread
title since he has no trace of wit or letters of his own with which to color his
discourse.
But more to the point, if we examine Mr. Steins Hebrew claim herein, we see
that he has, once again, transported himself back to =Auschwitz of the Mind= and
is having another hallucination. I have never criticized Mr. Stein due to the
quotation he cited. Rather I said his Hebrew knowledge was not too good without
specifying what my objection was. Stein is telling alt.revisionism readers I was
objecting to the quotation he cited. But how does he know that?Did he obtain
that knowledge from a seance at the U.S. Holohoax Museum? The fact is, this
Khazar is lying.
I wrote that Steins Hebrew was not too good because he criticized my use of
classical Hebrew. For a useful account of this please see the first post which
appears in the earlier thread entitled Hoffmans Hebrew.
Mr. Stein makes a full confession in that thread of how he misjudged my Hebrew,
thereby proving my contention that his Hebrew was not too good whereas mine
was perfect.
But the poor old chap doesnt know his right from his left and has now disgraced
himself herein with his tall tale.
Confounding Khazars in alt.revisionism is proving to be jolly good fun!
--Michael A. Hoffman II.
hoffm...@delphi.com
>In any event, if I am correct, and Hoffman believes that today's
>Ashkenazic Jews are in fact descendants of the Khazars, perhaps he
>can answer one simple question. Why is that Yiddish (the common
>tongue of Ashkenazic Jewry) is a *German* dialect that contains
>Slavic ("mir" for "wir", "paskudnyak"), Hebrew ("mame-loshen",
>"a miesse meshina [appropriate for Mr. Hoffman]", "momzer"), and
>even Romance ("cholent", "davenen", "bentschen") words, but *no
>Turkic*, if the Jews are the direct descendants of a Turkic-speaking
>people?
Mr. Schultz should consult the book: >>The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic
People in Search of a Jewish Identity<< by Paul Wexler. If not in your
library write: Slavica Publishers, PO Box 14388, Columbus. Ohio 43214.
This is an outstanding new book on the subject which I recommend.
--Michael A. Hoffman II.
Barry Shein
Wait a minute, I thought these Khazars were from the Caucasus?
So we have some people here bashing jews in their quest for caucasian
"rights" (Kleim, Savage) and others bashing jews for being caucasians
(Hoffman-sub-2.)
Tough crowd.
``We has met the enemy and they is us!''
-Walt Kelly, Pogo
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Wm Michael
(Richard Schultz) writes:
>you are going to have to at least make an attempt at proving your case.
Here is a good Jewish source:
Jewish author Arthur Koestler wrote “The Thirteenth Tribe” to tell of the
Khazar heritage of Jews. (See also the Jewish Encyclopedia article
Chazars.)
“…the large majority of surviving Jews in the world is of Eastern
European * and thus perhaps mainly of Khazar * origin. If so, this would
mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan but from the Volga, not
from Canaan but from the Caucasus, once believed to be the cradle of the
Aryan race; and that genetically they are more closely related to the Hun,
Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Should this turn out to be the case, then the term ‘anti-Semitism’ would
become void of meaning, based on a misapprehension shared by both the
killers and their victims.” (Koestler, p. 17).
His book goes on to prove his point convincingly. He states that:
“In the 1960s, the number of Sephardim was estimated at 500,000.
The Ashkenazim (Khazar descendants), at the same period, numbered about
eleven million.”
He also points out the Sephardim Jews, who can claim some semitic
blood, are also badly mixed.
“For the sake of piquantry it should be mentioned that the
Ashkenaz of the Bible refers to a people living somewhere in the vicinity
of Mount Ararat and Armenia. The name occurs in Genesis 10, 3, and I
Chronicles 1, 6, as one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of Japheth.
Ashkenaz is also a brother of Togarmah (and a nephew of Magog) whom the
Khazars, according to King Joseph, claimed as their ancestor.” (Koestler,
p. 181)
Michael P. Stein
Jew-jitsu this time! How can I possibly escape?
With one hand tied behind my back, actually....
In article <xuxW7Qe.h...@delphi.com>, <hoffm...@delphi.com> wrote:
[Note: Hoffman's text has been re-ordered to cause him maximum
humiliation, another evil Khazar trick.]
>Mr. Stein makes a full confession in that thread of how he misjudged my
>Hebrew, thereby proving my contention that his Hebrew was not too good
>whereas mine was perfect.
Yup, I confessed, alright. I confessed that I misjudged *which*
stupid mistake he made, ascribing to him the *less* stupid one. Hoffman
didn't make a gender error, but split a single word into two words
*twice*. Once is a typo, twice is a mistake.
Perfect. Yeah, right.
>But more to the point, if we examine Mr. Steins Hebrew claim herein, we see
>that he has, once again, transported himself back to =Auschwitz of the Mind=
>and is having another hallucination. I have never criticized Mr. Stein
>due to the quotation he cited. Rather I said his Hebrew knowledge was
>not too good without specifying what my objection was. Stein is telling
>alt.revisionism readers I was objecting to the quotation he cited. But
>how does he know that? Did he obtain that knowledge from a seance at
>the U.S. Holohoax Museum?
I *like* that use of "seance!" So appropriate for Halloween.
Especially since his words are going to come back to haunt Mr. Hoffman in
just a few paragraphs....
I know that because it's the only possible basis for his objection -
*at the time he made it*.
>I wrote that Steins Hebrew was not too good because he criticized my use of
>classical Hebrew. For a useful account of this please see the first post which
>appears in the earlier thread entitled Hoffmans Hebrew.
Now, now, Mr. Hoffman - if I were such a liar, why did I post the
suggestion about the true nature of the stupid mistake you made shortly
after it came into my possession? I could have just kept quiet about it.
Oh, dear, didn't think of that, did you?
It's really too bad that Mr. Hoffman could not answer the question of
what's wrong with my Hebrew *before* I made my posting. If he had
answered the question earlier, then there could be no doubt that he was
telling the truth. But now, you see, one must wonder whether he is
telling the truth here, or just desperately seizing on the out which I so
nicely provided him.
Actually, one need not wonder at all. Hoffman is lying about his
reason for his criticism of my Hebrew, and I can prove it beyond any
doubt. He said:
>I wrote that Steins Hebrew was not too good because he criticized my use of
>classical Hebrew.
This sounds plausible - except for one *tiny* little problem. In my
original comment, I *never* said anything was wrong with Hoffman's
Hebrew! What I said was this, on 2nd October:
"Your knowledge of Hebrew and Yiddish phrases is truly impressive. I
wonder if it's as comprehensive as my knowledge of martial arts - I know
jiu-jitsu, judo, aikido, and several other Japanese words."
That's it. You will note that nowhere in that text is even any
*suggestion* that I had detected anything wrong with the Hebrew Mr.
Hoffman used! I merely expressed skepticism about his actual knowledge of
Hebrew, suggesting he was merely a parrot of words whose flaws I had not
yet discussed.
Mr. Hoffman replied, "Your Hebrew[']s not too great" no later than 3rd
October, as that's when I included that text in another reply.
According to my archives, the first date on which I offered *any*
substantive criticism of Hoffman's Hebrew was 22nd October - 19 days
later!
Therefore it's clear *he* is the one having a hallucination. Hoffman
is telling alt.revisionism readers that the reason for his criticism of my
Hebrew was a comment I HADN'T MADE YET!
So how did he know that? Did he obtain that knowledge from -- oh,
gosh, *some seance at the Holocaust Museum*, perhaps? Call the National
Enquirer! I can see the headline now - "Revisionist Reveals Psychic
Powers!"
Mr. Hoffman claimed I was not too sharp - but it seems this "Khazar"
was sharp enough to trap him in an absolutely proven lie.
I must say, while this job doesn't pay at all, the fringe benefits
sometimes make it all worthwhile....
>But the poor old chap doesnt know his right from his left and has now
>disgraced himself herein with his tall tale.
Um, I don' thin' so, Ceesco....
>Confounding Khazars in alt.revisionism is proving to be jolly good fun!
Well, jolly good! *Still* having fun, Mr. Hoffman? I know *I* am!
Once again: how could you base a judgement of my Hebrew on a comment
I did not make until 19 days after you delivered that judgement? You
have no idea how eagerly I'm looking forward to your answer.
Bluffer.
No, scratch that. Hoffman's no longer a bluffer.
He's now a proven liar.
--
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Morrison
Message-ID: <5I9WTMU.h...@delphi.com>
>Mr. Stein, you may cite in favor of Kastner as much as you like. Since you are
>in favor of a Nazi collaborator maybe McVay will open a surveillance file on
>you.
I'd still like to know how you "spy" on what people say in a public
newsgroup. Is that like "digging up evidence" by reading an article
in The Washington Post?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Morrison
The ROTFL Quote of the Week:
McVay is a spy for O.S.I. official Eli Rosenbaum and others of his ilk who seek
to deport and imprison elderly anti-communists but who never investigate or
prosecute Khazar communists living or traveling in the U.S. who were responsible
for atrocities and war crimes against the peasants of Russia and Eastern Europe.
- Michael A. Hoffman II
************************************************************
*t0...@unb.ca * My views are not those of the University *
*************** of New Brunswick. UNB never has views on *
* * on anything, ever. *
************************************************************
Wm Michael
(Richard Schultz) writes:
>BTW, which "Jewish Encyclopedia" are you talking about? Are you talking
> about the one published in 1905, or do you mean the Encyclopedia
>Judaica?
I specifically stated The Jewish Encyclopedia.
hoffm...@delphi.com
>>Saying I suspect you are a parrot who only knows phrases, not the whole
language, does not say there is anything wrong with the phrases you parroted.<<
If you had been that articulate in your Oct. 2 post then I would have responded
differently. Instead you stated that I did not know what I was talking about by
making an analogy between stating Japanese martial arts names and the practice
of those arts.
I realize that you are a mind reader and have been able to definitively
determine what I was thinking Oct. 2 in reaction to your post. However for those
foul, anti-semitic skeptics who would dare to doubt your mighty telepathic
powers, the fact is, I took your allusion to be a criticism of my use of Hebrew.
Since my usage was correct, I thought that if you believed there was something
wrong with mine, that yours could not be very great. This was subsequently
confirmed when, following the tenor of your original analogy, you specifically
stated your objections to my usage. That these objections were erroneous, you
confirmed in the thread>>HoffmanUs Hebrew.<<
Stein writes:
>>You explicitly mentioned classical Hebrew. That concept was not brought into
the discussion until three weeks later--by me.<<
Wow, Mr. Stein is not only a mind-reader he is also some sort of monarch of
languages. Hebrew is not classical until Mr. Stein says it is. I did not know it
was classical until Mr. Stein mentioned it. Again, pardon my impudence, but I
knew the words I was using and I knew that they were classical Hebrew. Mr. Stein
and his fellow-travelers in linguistic blunder regaled my usage with insults and
boastful claims to their great authority and knowledge of the subject until Mr.
Stein finally discovered that he was grossly in error and felt compelled to
admit as much in the thread >>Hoffmans Hebrew<< in an effort to shore up what
little credibility he had left after being defeated in >>GoethUs Arrest.<<
Stein says:
>>Grow yourself a pair of testicles and admit it like a mensch.<<
I already possess a rather large pair of testicles thank you and as to your
latter demand, I do not think that would be possible, Mr. Stein and if you were
the authority on linguistics that you would like people to think that you are,
you would know why.
From Israeli journalist Israel Shahak:J>>It should be explained here that terms
like >other< or >human being< refer in Halacha to Jewish others and Jewish human
beings alone. When used in Hebrew by rabbis they must have that meaning. The
same holds true for Yiddish. Although the word >Mensch< is supposed to mean a
man, it is actually used only in reference to a Jewish man.<<
--Michael A. Hoffman II
Wayne McGuire
//Stein writes:
//From Israeli journalist Israel Shahak:J>>It should be explained here that terms
//like >other< or >human being< refer in Halacha to Jewish others and Jewish human
//beings alone. When used in Hebrew by rabbis they must have that meaning. The
//same holds true for Yiddish. Although the word >Mensch< is supposed to mean a
//man, it is actually used only in reference to a Jewish man.<<
//
// --Michael A. Hoffman II
According to Shahak--I just read his book--even the old Biblical
saw, "Love your neighbor/fellow as you love yourself," refers not
to human beings in general but only to Jews in particular. Talk
about unbridled ethnocentrism.
Can anyone here rebut Shahak? I'm not an expert on the subjects
he is taking on in _Jewish History, Jewish Religion_, but he sure
seems to know what he is talking about. And the ideological
temperament he is describing appears to be alive and well in
Brooklyn's _Jewish Press_, one of the most influential Jewish
newspapers in the world (and one in which Yitzhak Shamir
currently contributes a weekly column).
Love your fellow Englishman as you love yourself. Love your
fellow Frenchman as you love yourself. There is a certain lack of
nobility and universalism in those formulations.
If we're going to play the tribal game, then I guess any tribe
can play, and no other tribe can complain.
Danny Keren
posted, re the interpretation of "love your neighbour"). I'm not
a scholar of Judaism, and neither is Shahak - he's a chemist.
However, once again, I am amazed at your determination of flooding
this newsgroup with inappropriate articles. You must agree with
me that this belongs in soc.culture.jewish, right?
Why do you insist to flood alt.revisionism with discussions which
do not belong here? You're not only abusing the newsgroup, you're
also missing a large audience which may very well be interested
in such a topic. Your behavior is really strange.
You've started a discussion on something which IS relevant here;
that is, when did the Nazis decide to exterminate the Jews. Do you
want to continue with it?
-Danny Keren.
Wayne McGuire
//Why do you insist to flood alt.revisionism with discussions which
//do not belong here? You're not only abusing the newsgroup, you're
//also missing a large audience which may very well be interested
//in such a topic. Your behavior is really strange.
No, your mental horizons are pitifully narrow--few people in this
newsgroup have apparently bothered to acquire a broad liberal
education, one which will provide you with a sense of the true
complexity and richness of history. That is why Ken McVay and
most of the others here could not sit around a table with Paul
Johnson, Richard Pipes, or Arno Mayer and say anything of much
interest about the Holocaust or any other topic.
Holocaust revisionism in the broadest and most legitimate sense
encompasses a wide range of issues. Why did the Holocaust happen?
What was the historical context? What are the deepest roots of
anti-Semitism? Has the Holocaust been wildly and ridiculously
exaggerated compared to other political crimes in this century?
(It most assuredly has: the murder of 100 million innocent
civilians by Marxists has received virtually no attention at all
in Western popular culture.)
Shahak's book is highly relevant to the question of how we assign
relative blame to Jews and non-Jews in what appears at this point
in history to be a never-ending and eternal state of apocalyptic
conflict between Jews and non-Jews all over the world and all
throughout history. (Fifty years ago it was the Nazis; now it is
the Arabs and Muslims; is there any light at the end of this
tunnel? I am beginning to think not. And the state of perpetual
crisis is beginning to grow tiresome for many non-Jews and Jews
alike.)
I once thought that Jews throughout history subscribed to a
tolerant and humanistic religion that was persecuted by a bigoted
Christian tradition. It has come as quite a surprise to learn
from Shahak and others just how deep the bigotry and intolerance
have also run on the Jewish side of the fence. The responsibility
for this dangerous conflict and friction needs to be assigned to
both sides, in proportions that are open to debate.
What was the cultural context of the Holocaust in the largest
sense? That is a legitimate topic in the world of legitimate
revisionism.
Stephan Schulz
|> In article <39i1ei$c...@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, d...@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) wrote:
[...McGuire-speak deleted...]
|> Holocaust revisionism in the broadest and most legitimate sense
|> encompasses a wide range of issues. Why did the Holocaust happen?
|> What was the historical context? What are the deepest roots of
|> anti-Semitism? Has the Holocaust been wildly and ridiculously
|> exaggerated compared to other political crimes in this century?
|> (It most assuredly has: the murder of 100 million innocent
|> civilians by Marxists has received virtually no attention at all
|> in Western popular culture.)
I am still waiting for your response to my question about this 100
million claim. If it is that important to you, would you bother to
give a more detailed list of these 100 million? Are these political
victims or victims in (civil) wars?If the later, do you count the
casualties of one side or of both sides?
As the Harvard trained historian that you are, do you recognize that
"the Marxists" are a far more diverse group as "the Nazis" have been?
Why don't we deal with the awful crimes of "the humans" - they surpass
everything either Nazis or "Marxists" ever did...
|> Shahak's book is highly relevant to the question of how we assign
|> relative blame to Jews and non-Jews in what appears at this point
|> in history to be a never-ending and eternal state of apocalyptic
|> conflict between Jews and non-Jews all over the world and all
|> throughout history. (Fifty years ago it was the Nazis; now it is
|> the Arabs and Muslims; is there any light at the end of this
|> tunnel? I am beginning to think not. And the state of perpetual
|> crisis is beginning to grow tiresome for many non-Jews and Jews
|> alike.)
What about the "apocalyptic conflict between non-Americans and
Americans?" Fifty years ago it was the Nazis, then the Russians, the
Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Columbian Drug Lords...
Postulating a conflict between "non-Members of an ethnic group and
Members of an ethnic group" will give you nearly perpetual war for
every major group on this planet. There is not _one_ conflict between
Jews and non-Jews - there are a number of different conflicts between
different groups. The Jews that live in Israel today are a distinct
group from the Jews of eastern Europe in 1940 (there is a continuity,
but there also is a lot of change).
|> I once thought that Jews throughout history subscribed to a
|> tolerant and humanistic religion that was persecuted by a bigoted
|> Christian tradition. It has come as quite a surprise to learn
|> from Shahak and others just how deep the bigotry and intolerance
|> have also run on the Jewish side of the fence. The responsibility
|> for this dangerous conflict and friction needs to be assigned to
|> both sides, in proportions that are open to debate.
Oh boy - you really believed that the Jews are a lilly-white group,
totally devoid of the intolerant subgroups that nearly any other
ethnic group has?
BTW, Wayne, did you notice that on the one hand you demand answers
form Ken McVay within hours, while, on the other hand, you yourself
are absent for weeks and, even if you reappear, do not address much of
the responses to your postings?
Stephan
-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as stsc...@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Mittleman
>BTW, Wayne, did you notice that on the one hand you demand answers
>form Ken McVay within hours, while, on the other hand, you yourself
>are absent for weeks and, even if you reappear, do not address much of
>the responses to your postings?
If Wayne did what you say he did, "he's an asshole, a putz,
and a schmuck." (To quote a poster who insists he never lowers
himself to ad hominum arguments.)
===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman - da...@arizona.edu - (602) 621-2932
Michael P. Stein
Once again, I find it convenient to deal with Hoffman's points in an
ordering different from his.
In article <RM42TRN.h...@delphi.com>, <hoffm...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Stein writes:
>>>You explicitly mentioned classical Hebrew. That concept was not brought
>into the discussion until three weeks later--by me.<<
>
>Wow, Mr. Stein is not only a mind-reader he is also some sort of monarch of
>languages. Hebrew is not classical until Mr. Stein says it is. I did not
>know it was classical until Mr. Stein mentioned it.
False. I quote once more his explanation of *why* he said to me that
my Hebrew was not great.
>I wrote that Steins Hebrew was not too good because he criticized my use of
>classical Hebrew.
He could of course know that his Hebrew was classical before I told
him. What he *cannot* know is the *basis of my criticism* before I mention
it. Yet he clearly claimed *this* was why he said my Hebrew was not great.
He had no way of knowing the specific nature of my criticism at the
time he wrote that my Hebrew was not too good - unless, of course, he
claims to be a mind reader. In fact, he had no reason to know I suspected
the quality of his Hebrew *at all*. I offered *no* criticism of his Hebrew,
only the suggestion that he only knew words and phrases.
What Pinocchio would like people to forget is that what we are
discussing here is whether he could have had the reason he claimed for
saying "[My] Hebrew's not too great" *at the time he said it*. Since he
couldn't possibly have had the reason he claimed - again, absolutely NO
criticism of his *usage* was advanced at that time, only the suggestion that
he was parroting phrases without a knowledge of the whole language - he was
lying when he says his reason was my criticism of his *usage*.
Mr. Hoffman once more proves he is a liar, piling lies on top of lies to
save himself. It will avail him naught.
>Mr. Stein finally discovered that he was grossly in error
About the *nature* of Mr. Hoffman's blunder, not that he had made one.
Hoffman wrote "he chodosh" and "ha goyim." He split what should have been a
single word into two words *twice*. Because of the ambiguity of
pronunciation of Hebrew transliteration, I took "he chodosh" as "hee
chodosh" which was a gender error, and "ha goyim" as a slip of the keyboard.
Hoffman wrote "hatorah" correctly as one word, confusing the issue.
Mr. Hoffman has claimed that his Hebrew is "perfect." Is "un
grammatical" perfect English? No. Therefore "he chodosh" is "im perfect."
Hoffman goofed, and my misidentification of the *nature* of his goof does
not get him off the hook.
In any event, he cannot point to "Hoffman's Hebrew" as a reason for what
he said nearly three weeks earlier. Yet that's what he's trying to do here.
>and felt compelled to admit as much in the thread >>Hoffmans Hebrew<< in
>an effort to shore up what little credibility he had left after being
>defeated in >>GoethUs Arrest.<<
I could easily have glossed over the fact that it was someone else who
suggested that Hoffman's blunder was splitting "hechodosh" into two words.
Obviously I'm not very good at this lying business - unlike the master, Mr.
Hoffman, who tries to conceal the nature of what I said in "Hoffman's
Hebrew," not admitting that he wrote a single word as if it were two.
I *did* however blunder in posting the new information promptly. Now
Mr. Hoffman can claim that he didn't have enough time to prove that he knew
what he was doing. How terribly convenient for him.
Note that once again Hoffman pointed to my "error" admitted in my other
article, but omitted the description of just what that "error" was - i.e.,
thinking that when Hoffman wrote what looked like five words, he meant five
words. Now, Hoffman shrieked like a banshee about Spielberg "falsifying"
the Talmud by omitting the words "of Israel" from the quotation. Therefore
by omitting the *full* description of my other posting, Hoffman commits the
same crime he ascribes to Spielberg.
Add another inch, Pinocchio.
As for my being defeated in the other thread, the last time I heard so
many childish (and false) crows of victory was when I was playing with my
four-year-old nephew. However, that comparison is not fair to my nephew,
who overall shows more maturity than Mr. Hoffman.
>Stein says:
>>>Grow yourself a pair of testicles and admit it like a mensch.<<
>
>I already possess a rather large pair of testicles thank you
Proportionate to the size of the schmuck, obviously!
But we can certainly tell that he does; everyone can see them flapping in
the breeze right about now. It definitely takes a large pair to lie with
such naked *chutzpah* as he's showing - and the screams he's emitting let
me know I've well and truly got him by them.
>and as to your latter demand, I do not think that would be possible,
>Mr. Stein and if you were the authority on linguistics that you would like
>people to think that you are, you would know why.
>
>From Israeli journalist Israel Shahak:J>>It should be explained here that
>terms like >other< or >human being< refer in Halacha to Jewish others and
>Jewish human beings alone. When used in Hebrew by rabbis they must have
>that meaning. The same holds true for Yiddish. Although the word >Mensch<
>is supposed to mean a man, it is actually used only in reference to a Jewish
>man.<<>
Shahak certainly does not speak for all Jews, but the fact that there
are some Jews *almost* as hate-filled and twisted with bigotry as Mr.
Hoffman is sadly but forthrightly admitted. Mr. Hoffman's sophistry is
amusing but irrelevant. If he will clean his bifocals and read my words
once more, I did not in any event ask him to *be* a mensch, only to admit
his guilt LIKE a mensch. *That* much is quite possible for any goy even
under his sneering explanation.
I thank him for admitting that this is utterly impossible for *him*. He
continues to demonstrate this to the great amusement of myself and everyone
else. His continued barrage of lies, distortions, and sophistry to try to
extricate himself from the trap he put himself in with his original lie is a
marvel to behold.
>Stein writes:
>>>Saying I suspect you are a parrot who only knows phrases, not the whole
>language, does not say there is anything wrong with the phrases you
>parroted.<<
>
>If you had been that articulate in your Oct. 2 post then I would have
>responded differently.
Fine. It's never too late, you know. What would you have said?
Well?
Of course, Mr. Hoffman, that's easy for you to say *now*. For over two
weeks you were completely unable to articulate your reasons. When I asked
you what was wrong with my Hebrew, you thundered, "Now you demand I give you
Hebrew lessons?" which of course evades the question. I asked you several
times, and you couldn't express a reason. It walked like weaseling and
evasion, it quacked like weaseling and evasion, and therefore I call it
ducking the question - because you *had* no answer until I provided you with
what seemed to be a good bolt-hole. Due to your own carelessness in
crafting your fiction, however, this proved to be a bottomless pit in which
you find yourself now trapped.
You claim you would have responded differently if I had been more
articulate. But I *was* that articulate. I said, and I quote:
"Your knowledge of Hebrew and Yiddish phrases is truly impressive. I
wonder if it's as comprehensive as my knowledge of martial arts - I know
jiu-jitsu, judo, aikido, and several other Japanese words."
The meaning of this is quite clear to any person literate in English. I
suspected your Hebrew usage was a bluff just as my claim to know martial
arts would be a bluff - knowing the words, but not the thing itself. Again,
nothing there even hints that I think anything was wrong with the words you
used.
Yet you say that you believed I had said so, despite the fact that this
is an utterly unsupportable reading of my text - in fact, the "truly
impressive" part would if anything imply the opposite! Apparently
"hermeneutic context" and "exegetical integrity" are also just phrases you
parrot, not things you really know anything about.
Oh, dear. Hmn.
Mr. Hoffman, my kipah is off to you for this ingenious defense you seem
to have come up with! This is a brilliant stratagem that I had not
anticipated, one fully worthy of any of us evil Khazar Talmudic shysters!
Your argument here seems to be that your Hebrew is perfect, your only
problem is that you desperately need remedial reading lessons in *English*.
And I must confess - you have certainly provided proof of *that* beyond a
reasonable doubt!
So which is it, Mr. Hoffman? Do you admit you were lying about your
reason for saying my Hebrew was not great? Or do you escape by admitting
that you fantasized that reason because you are utterly incompetent in
reading the English language? [I think it's both, but I'll let him make the
call.]
Those are your only two options, sport. Neither one of them exactly
covers you with glory, but you've got to choose one.
Shall I give your great big testicles another great big *squeeze*, eh,
and see how loudly you squeal?
Still having *jolly good fun*, Mr. Hoffman? Rest assured, I am!
>Instead you stated
No, I said "I wonder if." There's a difference. Ask your remedial
reading teacher to explain it to you.
>that I did not know what I was talking about by
>making an analogy between stating Japanese martial arts names and the
>practice of those arts.
Which *still* does not say there is anything *wrong* with your usage!
In thinking I said on 2nd October that something was *wrong* with the Hebrew
you used - which is your claimed reason for saying you thought something was
wrong with *mine* as early as 3rd October - you must have hallucinated a
meaning for my words which does not exist even in your paraphrase above.
But I've already said I would be willing to accept a plea that despite
your use of big words, when it comes to reading and understanding complete
sentences, your facility in the English language does not exceed the first
grade level. No need to supply additional proof, Mr. Hoffman!
Wayne McGuire
stsc...@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote:
//BTW, Wayne, did you notice that on the one hand you demand answers
//form Ken McVay within hours, while, on the other hand, you yourself
//are absent for weeks and, even if you reappear, do not address much of
//the responses to your postings?
Guy, do you realize how many posts I receive here? If I answered
all of them, it would be a full-time job and everyone here would
be annoyed and charging me with trying to dominate the newsgroup.
I answer whatever posts I can get to. I NEVER evade answering any
specific posts, because I never, ever commit anything to print
that I am not willing to back up in detail.
You asked for information on the 100 million victims of Marxism.
I've posted the information three or four times now. Look it up
in the archives or look it up yourself. I've fulfilled my
responsibilities many times over in providing documentation to
support my various assertions.
Jonas Flygare
I answer whatever posts I can get to. I NEVER evade answering any
specific posts, because I never, ever commit anything to print
that I am not willing to back up in detail.
O thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou wayne!
Now, can you _please_ back your post, where you called me a Marxist
Zionist? (Remember, you stated you knew me well from my _numerous_
posts on t.p.m?)
Still waiting..
--
Safe PGP key fingerprint = A7 FA 4D 35 73 0E DB 65 69 D5 D4 E1 02 E6 91 E2
Unix PGP key fingerprint = 0D 22 64 4D 05 35 53 BA 83 56 7B 56 C6 61 D4 A7
DNA sequence fingerprint = 0E 21 45 FA 7A 11 34 FE ED DE AD BE EF 8F 10 71
DNA copyright 1962 - 1994 by Jonas Flygare, Copyright yours before IBM does.
hoffm...@delphi.com
inclinations while claiming to be a true Hebrew.
--Michael A. Hoffman II
hoffm...@delphi.com
The stuff about Kastner is more than just a case of one bad apple among
otherwise noble Zionists. It provides a clue about the nature of Zionist
ideology and its similarity to Nazism. To faithfully portray Kastner in
>>Schindlers List<< is to destroy Elie Wiesels shibboleth about World War
Two:>>Not every victim was a Jew but every Jew was a victim.<<
It is that racist logic which has informed the OSI and kept them from
prosecuting the numerous kapos of Khazar descent still alive in the U.S. who
committed crimes against concentration camp inmates. The argument will be raised
that they did so under duress. However, if this is the case why does it not also
apply to Ukrainian guards and other press-ganged POWs like Demjanjuk who are
regarded by OSI as completely culpable?
To answer your question about some of my specific revisionist convictions--I do
not believe there were any Nazi homicidal gassings at the camps in the Old Reich
(Germany proper) such as Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, etc.
Nor were there any homicidal gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The revisionist case for Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor has not been entirely
convincing.The chief revisionist objections to the official account concerning
these three camps have been: 1. Diesel engines have insufficient levels of
toxicity to work well as instruments of mass death and 2. There was an
insufficient capacity for the cadavers alleged to have been killed to have been
buried or otherwise disposed of on-site at the three camps.
According to technical reports from the U.S. Bureau of Mines and to private
scientific research to which I am privy, diesel engines can be made extremely
lethal with a few minor adjustments.
The cemetery capacity argument is interesting but no so compelling as to be
conclusive.
I am not saying that persons identified as >>Jews<< were in fact gassed at
Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec; only that I am open to the possibility that this
occurred, especially in small numbers on an ad hoc basis.
If this in fact occurred in any appreciable numbers, I believe it took place
only as a result of the real fear the Nazis had that no matter what they did or
did not do, the >>Jewish<< influence among the Allied powers would bring about
the extermination of the German people.
The Nazis believed that the >>Jews<< sought the extermination of the Germans
based on several factors, but the two that I have been able to track are 1. The
attempted extermination of the Christian peasantry of Russia by the so-called
>>Jewish<<Bolshevik leadership (cf. Arno Mayer, >>.Why Did the Heavens Not
Darken?<<). 2. The book by the American so-called >>Jew<<Theodore Kaufman,
>>Germany Must Perish<< which called for the extermination of the Germans. New
research by historian Charles Provan shows that the Germans took this book much
more seriously than was previously thought. It had a tremendous impact on their
war policy.
That there are documented calls for the extermination of persons identified as
>>Jews<< in Goebbels Diaries and in Himmlers Posen speech I do not doubt. You
will note however that Himmler cites his belief that the enemy is seeking to
exterminate his people in the Posen speech.
Assuming any gassings occurred at all (and if they did I believe the number of
Nazi personnel involved to have been small, 200 or less), whether Himmler
directly ordered an extermination attempt by diesel engine exhaust or merely
turned a blind eye on someone like Lublin SSCommander Odilo Globocnik, who may
have been gassing >>Jews<< with diesel engines, is something I am continuing to
investigate.
Terrible things were done to innocent >>Jewish<< civilians. Equally or more
horrible things were done to innocent German civilians by the Allies. When the
crimes against Jews are torn out of context they appear as uniquely evil. When
context is supplied, one begins to hate the Allies and the Zionists as much or
even more than the Nazis; the Allies because the >>area bombing<< campaign
against every major German city was a type of genocide and the Zionists because
they have used the horrors against >>Jews<< which they themselves aided and
abetted, to provide them with a license to holocaust the Palestinians or anyone
else who dares to dissent from their masquerade as Gods Chosen Real Estate
dealers.
I have a book contract to fulfill and cannot argue this at length now. I need to
keep my posts brief for the time being. When my schedule is less crowded I will
provide supporting documentation.
Michael A. Hoffman II. Editor, Revisionist Researcher Magazine; current issue:
U.S.$6.00 from Wiswell Ruffin House, Box 236, Dresden, New York 14441
THE SANHEDRIN HATH SPOKEN:
********************************************************************************
***************************
>>Says Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the (Simon) Wiesenthal Center:
>It may be time for the FCC to place a cop on the information superhighway.<<
--Home Office Computing, November, 1994, p. 18.
********************************************************************************
***************************
Danny Keren
# The revisionist case for Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor has not
# been entirely convincing.
True.
# According to technical reports from the U.S. Bureau of Mines and to private
# scientific research to which I am privy, diesel engines can be made extremely
# lethal with a few minor adjustments.
Yes, like restricting the air intake. This was discussed here at
length. Can you specify the U.S. Bureau of Mines source? Thanks.
-Danny Keren.
Stephan Schulz
|> In article <1994Nov6.2...@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>,
|> stsc...@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) wrote:
|>
|> //BTW, Wayne, did you notice that on the one hand you demand answers
|> //form Ken McVay within hours, while, on the other hand, you yourself
|> //are absent for weeks and, even if you reappear, do not address much of
|> //the responses to your postings?
|>
|> Guy, do you realize how many posts I receive here? If I answered
|> all of them, it would be a full-time job and everyone here would
|> be annoyed and charging me with trying to dominate the newsgroup.
Do you realize how many posts Ken McVay receives? I don't know, but I
think it's a fair bet that there are more articles directed to him
then there are directed to you...
|> I answer whatever posts I can get to. I NEVER evade answering any
|> specific posts, because I never, ever commit anything to print
|> that I am not willing to back up in detail.
Ok, so why don't you address any of the points I raised? The Marxist
"Holocaust" (quotation marks not because I doubt it, but because I
think _Holocaust_ is an inapproproate name (as is Genocide)) is only
one of them.
Here are they again:
---
As the Harvard trained historian that you are, do you recognize that
"the Marxists" are a far more diverse group as "the Nazis" have been?
Why don't we deal with the awful crimes of "the humans" - they surpass
everything either Nazis or "Marxists" ever did...
[...]
What about the "apocalyptic conflict between non-Americans and
Americans?" Fifty years ago it was the Nazis, then the Russians, the
Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Columbian Drug Lords...
Postulating a conflict between "non-Members of an ethnic group and
Members of an ethnic group" will give you nearly perpetual war for
every major group on this planet. There is not _one_ conflict between
Jews and non-Jews - there are a number of different conflicts between
different groups. The Jews that live in Israel today are a distinct
group from the Jews of eastern Europe in 1940 (there is a continuity,
but there also is a lot of change).
---
I am especially interested in the second point, below the "[...]".
|> You asked for information on the 100 million victims of Marxism.
|> I've posted the information three or four times now. Look it up
|> in the archives or look it up yourself. I've fulfilled my
|> responsibilities many times over in providing documentation to
|> support my various assertions.
I usually have a decent memory concerning historical issues. However,
as far as I can remember, all you ever wrote amounted to "How dare you
ask? The Chinese alone killed more that 80 million!" (my words). If
_anybody_ else has more exact data (or can point me to an article
where Wayne "provided documentation" to this point), please share
these information with me.
Staffan Friberg
> In article <FMZlk0yN...@world.std.com> wmcg...@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) writes:
>
> I answer whatever posts I can get to. I NEVER evade answering any
> specific posts, because I never, ever commit anything to print
> that I am not willing to back up in detail.
> O thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou wayne!
> Now, can you _please_ back your post, where you called me a Marxist
> Zionist? (Remember, you stated you knew me well from my _numerous_
> posts on t.p.m?)
And, while you're at it, Mr McGuire, could you also explain why you called me
a marxist as well? I'm appearently only a marxist and not a marxist zionist
but I guess that'll have to do.
(Jonas, kan du inte ge några lektioner?)
--
//
//
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ \\ // AMIGA +++
+ Staffan Friberg + EMail: \X/ +
+ Undergraduate student Chemistry + +
+ Linköping University + InterNet: st...@rabbit.augs.se +
+ Sweden + FidoNet: 2:204/404.2 or +
+ + 2:204/418.9 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Don't laugh - this is science"
(James Randi)
Richard Schultz
Wayne McGuire <wmcg...@world.std.com> wrote:
>I NEVER evade answering any
>specific posts, because I never, ever commit anything to print
>that I am not willing to back up in detail.
You might start by explaining how you came to completely misstate not
only the number of books published by the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation that are
listed on HOLLIS, but also the number of citations of Pressac's book in
the scholarly literature.
After that, it should be relatively easy to tell us about Hill & Wang,
publishers, and their scholarly reputation.
Just a polite suggestion or two.
--
Richard Schultz
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
Scott H Mullins
>(It most assuredly has: the murder of 100 million innocent
>civilians by Marxists has received virtually no attention at all
>in Western popular culture.)
Marxists never killed 100 million innocent people. They
sent a few people to bed without supper, and may have
given Aspirin to children who had a fever, but Marxists
didn't have a plan or program to murder 100 million innocent
people.
Prove otherwise.
I think you're only touting this so-called 'Marxo-caustomania'
to further your own anti-Communist agenda and put money
in your own pocket.
Prove it happened, monkey-boy. Or shut up.
--
Scott
smul...@ecn.purdue.edu
Wayne McGuire
dmitt...@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) wrote:
// If Wayne did what you say he did, "he's an asshole, a putz,
// and a schmuck." (To quote a poster who insists he never lowers
// himself to ad hominum arguments.)
Nah, guy: what should all you folks have all the fun wallowing in
the mud. Now and then I'll throw a hard elbow, too, to get into
the swing of things.
But I will get back on substance right quick. Ad hominem attacks
are BORING.
Anyone who in any way justifies terrorism as a method to squelch
free speech is worse than an asshole, a schmuck, and a putz in my
book. Maybe you dig terrorism.
Kari Nenonen
Staffan Friberg <st...@rabbit.augs.se> wrote:
>And, while you're at it, Mr McGuire, could you also explain why you called me
>a marxist as well? I'm appearently only a marxist and not a marxist zionist
>but I guess that'll have to do.
>
>(Jonas, kan du inte ge några lektioner?)
Tar det lungt, Staffan. F|r Mr McGuire allt som kan r|ra till v{nster {r
marxist. Och allt some kan r|ra till v{nster och har ett Jude namn, {r
marxist zionist.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ \\ // AMIGA +++
>+ Staffan Friberg + EMail: \X/ +
>+ Undergraduate student Chemistry + +
>+ Linköping University + InterNet: st...@rabbit.augs.se +
>+ Sweden + FidoNet: 2:204/404.2 or +
>+ + 2:204/418.9 +
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>"Don't laugh - this is science"
> (James Randi)
.
--
Kari Nenonen - kauh...@mits.mdata.fi - Skepsis r.y.
Maavallintie 4 - Tel: 358-0-5636625 - Helsingin Scifiseura
00430 Helsinki - The Finnish Dramatists' Society - Wan.Her.Tiet.Kirj.N.H
Finland - The Writers' Union of Finland - The International J.C.
Jamie McCarthy
> I am not saying that persons identified as >>Jews<< were in fact gassed at
> Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec; only that I am open to the possibility that this
> occurred, especially in small numbers on an ad hoc basis.
Let me get this straight.
You accept that diesel gassing was technically possible at the Reinhard
camps, right?
But you doubt that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed at each camp.
Why? What evidence don't you believe? What evidence makes you believe
otherwise? Can you give me one good reason why the gassing, which you
admit happened, did not happen on the scale that historians tell us it did?
> If this in fact occurred in any appreciable numbers, I believe it took place
> only as a result of the real fear the Nazis had that no matter what they did or
> did not do, the >>Jewish<< influence among the Allied powers would bring about
> the extermination of the German people.
Now, this is just amazing.
You begrudgingly admit that maybe hundreds of thousands of Jews _were_
killed at the Reinhard camps -- but that the Nazis had a good reason.
That reason being that they were scared of what the Jews in Allied
countries would do to them.
So their logic would have gone something like...what? "The Jews in
the U.S. will make the U.S. fight us. I have an idea! Let's kill a
few million of them!"
The Nazis couldn't figure out that Jews in Allied countries were already
ready to go to war, and that exterminating the Jews in occupied
territory would only strengthen their resolve? Or didn't they think
it that far through? "Oh, gee, I guess those American Jews are really
mad at us now. Oops."
What in the hell are you thinking of, Hoffman?
Posted and emailed.
--
Jamie McCarthy Internet: k04...@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy
"I am taking landpost's spelling as correct,
I realize that is not risk-free" - Daniel Rice
Barry Shein
From: wmcg...@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire)
>Anyone who in any way justifies terrorism as a method to squelch
>free speech is worse than an asshole, a schmuck, and a putz in my
>book. Maybe you dig terrorism.
So then why do you continue to refuse to denounce the IRA's terrorist
activities?
Michael P. Stein
Wow, wotta devastating rebuttal.
hoffm...@delphi.com
>>Can you give me one good reason why the gassing, which you admit happened<<
the Reinhard camps<<
Mr. McCarthy, are you delusional, or what? I have not admitted there were any
homicidal gassings of even one Khazar (so-called >>Jew<<), much less >>hundreds
of thousands.<<
McCarthy asks:
>>What in the hell are you thinking of, Mr. Hoffman?<<
What I am thinking of, McCarthy, is of that rare commodity in this news group
known as an open mind and a non-dogmatic response to anomalous information.
I believe that diesel technology can be used efficiently for purposes of mass
murder and I will post documentation in support of that contention in the near
future. Hopefully this can be discussed by revisionists and non-revisionists in
a thoughtful manner.People with a terminal case of hysteria, such as yourself,
may wish to contain themselves long enough to allow a genuine exchange of data,
rather than cliches, to occur.
--Michael A. Hoffman II
Staffan Friberg
> In article <staff...@rabbit.augs.se>,
> Staffan Friberg <st...@rabbit.augs.se> wrote:
> >And, while you're at it, Mr McGuire, could you also explain why you called me
> >a marxist as well? I'm appearently only a marxist and not a marxist zionist
> >but I guess that'll have to do.
> >
> >(Jonas, kan du inte ge några lektioner?)
> Tar det lungt, Staffan. F|r Mr McGuire allt som kan r|ra till v{nster {r
> marxist. Och allt some kan r|ra till v{nster och har ett Jude namn, {r
> marxist zionist.
Ja, det är nog sant, tyvärr, får man väl säga. :(
Jag har inga förhoppningar om ett svar och jag tror inte att Jonas kommer
att få det heller. Med lite tur så kan vi väl i alla fall irritera herr
McGuire genom att skriva hans namn i en text han troligen inte kan förstå. ;)
--
//
//
Ken Mcvay
>I answer whatever posts I can get to. I NEVER evade answering any
>specific posts, because I never, ever commit anything to print
>that I am not willing to back up in detail.
Horseshit, Mr. McGuire, horseshit.
You have failed (utterly and completely) to "back up in detail" your
spurious allegations about the lack of "negative information" within
my archives, even though you slavishly continue to offer them.
In short, Mr. McGuire, you are lying about the content of my
archives, and you are lying in the quoted paragraph above.
One might conclude, therefore, that one should maintain a safe
distance from your face, given the increasingly embarrassing length
of your nose.
--
"Most of the revisionists probably have 'Vergasungskeller' themselves
to power their computer systems - living proof that a perpetuum mobile
can be built - the computer is used to manufacture manure, and the
manure used to power the computer to produce more manure." (Eric Doenges)
Dan Spiegel
>In article <FMZlk0yN...@world.std.com>, wmcg...@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) writes:
>|> You asked for information on the 100 million victims of Marxism.
>|> I've posted the information three or four times now. Look it up
>|> in the archives or look it up yourself. I've fulfilled my
>|> responsibilities many times over in providing documentation to
>|> support my various assertions.
>
>I usually have a decent memory concerning historical issues. However,
>as far as I can remember, all you ever wrote amounted to "How dare you
>ask? The Chinese alone killed more that 80 million!" (my words). If
>_anybody_ else has more exact data (or can point me to an article
>where Wayne "provided documentation" to this point), please share
>these information with me.
writings a quote where Marx referred to "smashing the bourgeois".
This he claimed was a call for mass-murder. (If you don't believe,
I can go into my extremely tiny archives and find it within, oh,
an hour or two)
>Stephan
| -DS I speak for myself only. No unsolicited e-mail, please. |
| Please do not use my name in any subject headers. |
| Obligatory quote: "Sometimes one must cut off a finger to save a hand" |
| -Po, lowly priest of Hunan province, Shao-Lin Master |
Kari Nenonen
>> Tar det lungt, Staffan. F|r Mr McGuire allt som kan r|ra till v{nster {r
>> marxist. Och allt some kan r|ra till v{nster och har ett Jude namn, {r
>> marxist zionist.
>
>Ja, det är nog sant, tyvärr, får man väl säga. :(
>
>Jag har inga förhoppningar om ett svar och jag tror inte att Jonas kommer
>att få det heller. Med lite tur så kan vi väl i alla fall irritera herr
>McGuire genom att skriva hans namn i en text han troligen inte kan förstå. ;)
Jo, n} det var min mening ocks} n{r jag skrev p} svenska. ;)
.
.
> //
> //
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ \\ // AMIGA +++
>+ Staffan Friberg + EMail: \X/ +
>+ Undergraduate student Chemistry + +
>+ Linköping University + InterNet: st...@rabbit.augs.se +
>+ Sweden + FidoNet: 2:204/404.2 or +
>+ + 2:204/418.9 +
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>"Don't laugh - this is science"
> (James Randi)
.
.
Stephan Schulz
|> In article <1994Nov8.1...@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> stsc...@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz) writes:
|> >In article <FMZlk0yN...@world.std.com>, wmcg...@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) writes:
|> >[...]
|> >|> You asked for information on the 100 million victims of Marxism.
|> >|> I've posted the information three or four times now. Look it up
|> >|> in the archives or look it up yourself. I've fulfilled my
|> >|> responsibilities many times over in providing documentation to
|> >|> support my various assertions.
|> >
|> >I usually have a decent memory concerning historical issues. However,
|> >as far as I can remember, all you ever wrote amounted to "How dare you
|> >ask? The Chinese alone killed more that 80 million!" (my words). If
|> >_anybody_ else has more exact data (or can point me to an article
|> >where Wayne "provided documentation" to this point), please share
|> >these information with me.
|>
|> As "proof" of the murderous intentions of Marx, he posted from Marx's
|> writings a quote where Marx referred to "smashing the bourgeois".
|> This he claimed was a call for mass-murder. (If you don't believe,
|> I can go into my extremely tiny archives and find it within, oh,
|> an hour or two)
Aha. Then it's not my memory, but my limited reasoning
capabilities. Well, not having been educated at Harvard, I was not
able to immediately find the obvious numerical breakdown of the 100
million claim in the Marx quote...thanks for opening my eyes, Dan :-).
Jeffrey G. Brown
> inclinations while claiming to be a true Hebrew.
>
> --Michael A. Hoffman II
Ah, there's a scholarly response if ever there was one. Hoffman's Nazi pals must be proud of them. Look how carefully he took each and every one of Michael Stein's points and refuted them with rock-solid logic.
Nothing like real revisionist "scholarship" and "research", is there?
JGB