From mstein@access4.digex.net Wed Jan  1 06:48:44 PST 1997
Article: 90338 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: For Doc Tavish--Kramer III
Date: 29 Dec 1996 03:46:05 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <5a5b4d$q26@access4.digex.net>
References: <59m3o5$hhs@itssrv1.ucsf.edu> <32c0ca5e.73792997@news.micron.net> <59rrvd$756@access2.digex.net> <32c45f08.308494014@news.micron.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <32c45f08.308494014@news.micron.net>,
Kurt Stele  wrote:
>On 25 Dec 1996 13:32:13 -0500, mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P.
>Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <32c0ca5e.73792997@news.micron.net>,
>>Kurt Stele  wrote:
[snip]

>>And similarly, ["revisionsts"] take the Nazi's desire to use the
>>Jews as slave labor as proof they did not desire to kill off the Jews. 
>>Another tenet of "revisionist logic" is that if someone has extermination
>>as a goal at time X, that is their goal forever after and it cannot be
>>changed.
>
>Mike Stein, failing even to reach the threshold of "nice try," gives
>his best shot at trying to explain why Germans supposedly trying to
>exterminate Jews would insead keep them alive and even under medical
>care.  Praise the Holohoax!

    I have news for you.  There is a similar hoax going on under our noses
this very minute.  The US government supposedly has a campaign to get
people to stop smoking.  Yet I have IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the US
government also subsidizes tobacco farmers!  By Mr. Stele's logic the
campaign to eliminate cigarette smoking is proved to be a Joosh hoax,
because the government is trying to keep tobacco farming alive. 

    Your inability to grasp the provable fact that governments can and do
act irrationally and pursue seemingly contradictory goals is not my fault. 

    Now, what was that about "nice try?"


>>>The
>>>Soviets would exterminate prisoners just for the sake of convenience.
>>>Yet the Germans even for convenience did not wipe out these Jewish
>>>inmates.
>>
>>    "The Germans" did not have wiping out the Jews as their goal.  Certain
>>Nazi leaders held that goal.  According to Kurt Becher, Himmler ordered
>>the end of gassing in Auschwitz in late 1944, when it was apparent the end
>>was inevitable.  It would appear that saving ass became the goal of higher
>>priority. 
>
>That's funny.  The Nazis never referred to extermination by gassing in
>documents

    Danny Keren has already shredded this lie.  Two more documents about
gassing are letters from Becker to Rauff and Just to Rauff.

    And this same Walter Rauff, in a 1972 deposition taken in Chile,
corroborated the fact that he did receive a letter from Becker about the
gassing vans.

    No nasty Soviet torturers there, I'm afraid.  Sorry about that.

    Now, what was that about "nice try?"


>even when it was clear that the "end was not near" and there
>was no reason not to do so.   Since the Nazis supposedly murdered
>millions of Jews already any surcease would not have "saved their ass"
>one bit any more than continuing the fictitious program.

    Hope springs eternal, and all that.  "Look, I was a good guy, I
stopped it as soon as I had the chance!"  Worth a shot, at least - better
than nothing.


>Looks like
>you'll have to rest your religion back on eyewitness testimony in
>contradiction of the weight and absence of physical evidence again.
>It will be nothing new of course.

    And of course you rest your religion on unsupported assertions and
outright falsehoods, such as the one that there was no reference to
gassing in documents, and no physical evidence (such as the documents). 

    Now, what was that about "nice try?" 

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jan  1 10:33:05 PST 1997
Article: 90368 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: For the Benefit of Mr. Kike
Date: 1 Jan 1997 11:36:21 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <5ae3q5$b4f@access5.digex.net>
References: <5a9po7$nk2@access5.digex.net> <5absbq$hlr@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5absbq$hlr@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>   mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) writes:
>  CHLORINATION-
>  
>>  >Chlorination is the method of choice
>>  
>>  for economic and taste reasons, not safety reasons.
>
>
>COMMENT:  Wrong.  For safety as well as logistic reasons.--rb

    No, "boiling is the safest method" according to your own source.  Now
you are actively starting to lie.


>>  >Now, if anyone has the honesty to admit it, this post should decisively
>>  >settle this water business at Belsen once and for all. 
>>  
>>      Thank you for having the honesty to post this excerpt from an
>>  authoritative source which clearly states, and I quote,
>>  
>>     "boiling is the safest method,"
>>  
>>  and that you and Matt Giwer were absolutely, positively, completely,
>>  thoroughly, totally and immensely wrong in saying that it was ineffective. 
>>  This should indeed settle the water business once and for all.  Kramer
>>  should have organized the inmates who could work and set them to boiling
>>  as much water as they could with whatever containers they had. 
>>  
>
>COMMENT:  Wrong again.  See my reply in detail previous to this post.-rb

    Repeating your lies (and now they are lies, not merely mistakes) will
not make them true.

    "Boiling is the safest method."


>>  [Irrelevant claims completely unsupported by any evidence deleted]
>>  
>>  >I need not elaborate on any other
>>  >aspects clearly stated in the War Department manual.
>>  
>>      I agree 100%.  "Boiling is the safest method" speaks for itself
>>  with no need for further elaboration, at least for anyone who reads
>>  English at the fourth grade level.
>

>Well, you must be far below the understanding of an 4th grader, as you
>have failed to comprehend the overall picture at belsen, and concentrate
>your arguments on boiling water in little tin cups for 60,000 inmates.

   It was you who initially concentrated your apology for Kramer's failure
to boil on the fact that it was ineffective.  You also dishonestly fail to
come to terms with what I have written about the overall situation at
Belsen.  I have admitted on more than one occasion that it is likely that
Kramer's efforts would not have been 100% successful.  But I have also
pointed out that this does not excuse making a 0% effort.  You have never
addressed this point.

    I comprehend the overall situation at Belsen far better than you, it
would seem.  You are being dishonest here.

    You are also very, very dishonest in pretending that "little tin cups" 
were all that were available.  Before the situation at Belsen went to
hell, it had functional kitchens.  What happened to the cookpots?  You now
resort to hysterical exaggerations about the situation.  Despite your
repeated claims about who is winning all the arguments, I think this gives
a pretty good indication that you know you are in an untenable position.
If you really had a good argument, you wouldn't have to lie about "little
tin cups."


>It is clear that you have failed the exam--rb

    "Boiling is the safest method." - Blackmore's source

    "[Chlorination is the method of choice] for safety reasons." -
Blackmore

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jan  2 11:10:14 PST 1997
Article: 90594 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Pilpul Shel Hevel
Date: 2 Jan 1997 12:05:08 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <5agps4$ga0@access5.digex.net>
References: <5ag6q0$2r@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5ag6q0$2r@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:

>The traditional Talmudic mode of argument, the pilpul shel hevel, is
>aregumentation based on analogy and approximation and not on the
>syllogism, the basis of classical logic.  The pilpul is the
>quintessentially Jewish mode of argumentation.  It is the basis for all
>Talmudic discourse.

    I hate to break this news to you, Mr. Blackmore, but it is the basis
for legal discourse in general - and remember, the Talmud is a work on law
and legal reasoning.  If you read Supreme Court decisions, you will not
see neat syllogisms.  Rather, you will see references to previous cases
with approximately analogous features, with much argumentation as to the
relevance of those features and the importance of the differences.
Attorneys spend much time arguing over the difference between, e.g.,
"legitimate public interest" and "compelling public interest." 

    I suppose I should not be too surprised if you take this as proof that
DA JOOS control the world.... 

>Suspending time and space, it confronts the opinions
>of all authority, seeking the moment of resolution hidden within
>seemingly contradictory positions. 

    Could you please translate the pompous hot air above into something
resembling meaningful English? 

    And could you please tell us if you actually wrote the words above, or
merely copied someone else's rhetoric without proper attribution?


>And so we learn the methods of argumentation on alt. revisionism.

    Because!  I!  Say!  So!

    That certainly seems to be your method of argumentation around here. 
And I don't see that it has much relation to classical logic either. 

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jan  2 22:35:25 PST 1997
Article: 90647 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.kis.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The revisionist standard of proof
Date: 2 Jan 1997 10:32:12 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <5agkds$am8@access5.digex.net>
References: <32ce87ca.5210098@news.inetport.com> <5afv7j$rdm@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5afv7j$rdm@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>   mcurtis@inetport.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
>  
>>  I'm not sure who is evading here, but I think I asked _you_ : "Define
>>  proof. Define exactly the "evidence" that you would call
>>  evidence." You answered Mark's post but not my own. This is what was
>>  expected however, for this is the question that further sinks silly
>>  deniers and the silly fearful denier groups. Readers will note that
>>  none of the denier groups are ever present in this conference. 
>  
>  
>>>>>
>COMMENT:  I clearly gave you something I would regard as proof--the reports
>your colleague has failed to deliver for months now.--rb

    Except that you left out the part about your only accepting it if the
report comes out the way you like.  You were also shown a U. S. Army
pathology report on tanned human skin panels, and you said (with your
usual Because! I! Say! So! evidence) that the reports were frauds. 
Therefore I am rather skeptical of your claim that you would accept a
report from Dr. Larsen if it did not support you. 

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jan  3 20:05:44 PST 1997
Article: 90853 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.radio.cz!voskovec.radio.cz!news.cesnet.cz!01-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!02-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!sunic!surfnet.nl!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Bad German "Gene"
Date: 3 Jan 1997 13:44:13 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <5ajk1t$ikl@access5.digex.net>
References: <5agm66$cim@access5.digex.net> <5aij57$lnh@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5aij57$lnh@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>   mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) writes:
>  In article <5ag0ig$rdm@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>  Adam Gurowski, a Polish noble, observed in his 1857 memoirs that "numbers
>  of Jews have the greatest resemblance to the American mulattoes. [...]
>  
>      Would you think it rude of me to ask precisely what point you think
>  you are making by posting this?
>  
>>>>>
>COMMENT:  My point is in reply to Goldhagen, who, unless I am mistaken,
>referred to a Bad gene in germans which made the Holocaust possible.


    Ah, thank you.  From everything I have read, you are very mistaken. 
Although to be fair, I suppose I should mention that you would not be the
only person to make that mistake. 

    At the risk of being rude again, could you please tell us where you
got the idea that Goldhagen said such a silly thing?

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jan  4 09:44:04 PST 1997
Article: 90950 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-penn.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Luther Comments on the Debating Tactics of Jews
Date: 3 Jan 1997 15:04:17 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <5ajoo1$mvu@access5.digex.net>
References: <32d5356e.22274233@news.spry.com> <5aih98$lnh@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5aih98$lnh@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   klewis@awinc.com (Ken Lewis) writes:
>>  On 2 Jan 1997 11:05:11 GMT, rblackmore@juno.com wrote:
>>  
>>  >Luther wrote:
>>  
>>  >"No doubt it is necessary for the Jews to lie and to misinterpret in 
>>  >order to
>>  >maintain their error ever against such a clear and powerful text.

[snip]

>>  And what does this have to do with the Holocaust, Mr. Bellinger?
>>  What? Nothing at all? You mean it was just an opportunity for you
>>  to share some more of your anti-semitism with us? How
>>  unsurprising. Did you share this little goody with your friend
>>  Harold Covington?

>>>>>
>That your tactics of disputation and argumentation appear to
>ape those of the Jews of Luther's time, I find the quotation 
>rather apt.

    Funny, I find the passage rather apt for another reason: your tacitcs
of disputation and argumentation appear to ape those of Luther in this
passage.

    The Jews are lying!  Because!  I!  Say!  So!

>If the shoe fits, wear it, don't try to clobber someone
>over the head with it, simply because they pointed out a pertinent fact.--rb

    It is a fact?  Oh, yes - Because!  I!  Say!  So!

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Sun Jan  5 11:42:47 PST 1997
Article: 91148 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dciteleport.com!worldnet.att.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Why is "Holocaust Denial" a bad thing?
Date: 5 Jan 1997 10:41:28 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <5aoi38$c0b@access4.digex.net>
References:  <19970101232800.SAA25052@ladder01.news.aol.com> <5ags45$ht4@access5.digex.net> <01bbfa96$20f18c40$2b7213cc@server>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <01bbfa96$20f18c40$2b7213cc@server>,
Anthony Sabatini  wrote:
>Michael P. Stein  wrote in article
><5ags45$ht4@access5.digex.net>...
>> In article <19970101232800.SAA25052@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>> DvdThomas  wrote:
>
>[a lot snipped]
>
>>     The problem I have with your reply is that Mr. Sabitini did not use
>> the word "questioning."  He used the word "denial."  There is a
>> difference.  Now, perhaps he did mean to say "questioning," but suffered
>> one of the lapses of language skills seen around here with such alarming
>> frequency.  However, the fact remains that Jamie responded to the
>> question he actually asked. 
>
>Hmmm...at the risk of personal attack, I'd like to venture these comments:
>
>I used the word "denial" because the term commonly used to refer to this
>branch of revisionism is "Holocaust deniers"; whether they blatantly
>dismiss the whole thing happened (i.e., deny) or question portions thereof
>is irrelevant.

    Thank you for the clarification.


>>     I further note that Mr. Sabitini asked why such denial was
>> "considered" antisemitic - in other words, as I read it he appears to be
>> asking about the thoughts of those doing the vilifying, not the attitudes
>> of the vilified.  If his pen was as finely-tipped as you say, then Jamie
>> gave a completely legitimate answer.  For you to criticize Jamie for
>> mishandling the question you suppose Mr. Sabitini was really asking - in
>> which case he must have been the one writing with a paint roller -
>> strikes
>> me as a bit odd.
>
>I am unclear as to which camp you described as the "vilifying" and the
>"vilified".

    The "vilifiers" would be those making the charge of antisemitism - in
other words:

>My original question was directed at those who defend the
>Holocaust as being what is currently considered "historically correct" (to
>the general populace).

    Which is what I thought you were asking.


>Disclaimer: Asking a question does not automatically place me in one camp
>or another.
>
>BTW, I don't see how my writing skills come into play on the topic, but I
>digress...

    Well, it turns out to be more about Mr. Thomas's reading skills, since
you have confirmed that I was correct about the target of your question. 
Mr. Thomas made a very definite (and inaccurate) claim about what you
meant by what you wrote; had you actually meant what he claimed, you would
have expressed it very poorly.  But that turns out not to be the case.

    Besides Jamie McCarthy's answer, there is also the fact that an
unusually high number of those denying the Holocaust (and I do mean
denying, not questioning) make overtly antisemitic statements.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sun Jan  5 20:26:29 PST 1997
Article: 91238 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Blackmore's research
Date: 5 Jan 1997 19:44:22 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <5apht6$p3t@access5.digex.net>
References: <32ce8665.1525209@news.inetport.com> <5antac$2so@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5antac$2so@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   mcurtis@inetport.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
> ibokor@metz.une.edu.au (ibokor) wrote:
>As other deniers we have met here, "rblackmore" has long
>ago dispensed with any research. Bland assertion and fabrication
>are much easier and harbours no danger of prejudices, 
>preconceptions and biases being challenged by the cold
>light of reality.
>
>d.A.
>
>  Research IS work.
>>>>>
>COMMENT:  Well, why don't you try it sometime?--rb

     How is it then, Mr. Blackmore, that Mr. Curtis is able to provide
large citations from references without (as you insinuate) research, while
you always plead that you must get back to us with your evidence?  (And
often fail to do so.)

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jan  6 02:18:25 PST 1997
Article: 91294 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!tezcat!feed1.news.erols.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Blackmore vs. Blackmore (again)
Date: 5 Jan 1997 19:38:59 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <5aphj3$ou9@access5.digex.net>
References:  <5ant55$2so@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5ant55$2so@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) writes:
>snip
>>
>COMMENT:  Go on deluding yourself, mark, I doubt whether you are deluding
>many others who browse here.--rb



From: rblackmore@juno.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No SS Man Was Ever Punished?
Date: 22 Dec 1996 10:13:24 GMT
Message-ID: <59j1k4$hr6@juliana.sprynet.com>

I always have a suspicion of people who claim to speak for everyone.
They have bizarre complexes.--rb




-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access2.digex.net Mon Jan  6 06:52:17 PST 1997
Article: 91352 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.lava.net!news.Hawaii.Edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nikzor's Mike Stein
Date: 6 Jan 1997 02:40:11 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <5aqa8r$pqt@access2.digex.net>
References: <32cf5161.232920880@news.dmsc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article <32cf5161.232920880@news.dmsc.net>,
Cliff Swiger (cswiger@westco.net) wrote:

> Nikzor's Mike Stein, a "Talmud-thumping.....JOO" as he calls himself,
> claims to have publicized a great revelation and rebuttal to Friedrich
> Paul Berg's "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth within a Myth." But what
> actually appears in this harangue is nothing more than disagreement
> over minor technical data as regards the chemical reactions involved
> with Diesel combustion engines. 

    I'm sure Mr. Swiger would like people to think that this is all I did. 
Alas, he unaccountably failed to produce quotes from my work and show how
his characterization is true.

    To tell you the truth, I don't recall making a single claim about the
chemical reactions.  What I did was reproduce information taken from
technical papers describing the composition of exhaust gas from a diesel
engine under different conditions, and point out some things contained in
those papers that Friedrich Berg failed to mention.  I don't claim to have
a clue as to the exact chemical reactions that went on inside the
cylinders to produce that exhaust.

    The results are what they are.  Mr. Swiger's calling them a "harangue" 
will not magically change the results.  Since he did not cite any specific
material from my paper which was erroneous and demonstrate why it was
erroneous, I guess people will have to go read it for themselves and see
if they agree or not. 


> Certainly, in technical research, one is going to encounter extremes
> in data. But, industry attempts to establish standards, which are
> averages, for design parameters and operation, in effect, smoothing
> out the spikes. Standards, curves and tables do not represent 100%
> predictable data.  They do, however, establish a mean (average) by
> which engineers, designers, et al, can make professional decisions.

    Except that in this case, all the research is founded on the notion
that one is trying to make the best use of the engine for its legitimate
purpose.  Such research tells us precisely _nothing_ about what _can_ be
done if one intends to use the engine for an illegitimate purpose.  It is
(at the very least) a gross logical error to take averages and use them as
the basis for a claim that any large deviations from those averages are
impossible.


> I may make the statement that Earth's gravitational acceleration is
> 9.806 meters/second squared and be called a liar. 9.806 meters/second
> squared is an AVERAGE value that is commonly used in scientific
> calculations. But, in reality, I am a liar due to the fact that the
> effect of Earth's instananeous gravitational acceleration on a body is
> dependent upon that body's distance from the center of the Earth.
> Nonetheless, I'm a liar. This is Mike Stein's tactic.

    Once again, Mr. Swiger makes very loud and derisive claims about what
I wrote, but does not bother to back up his claims with any quotes.  How
_very_ curious.  Well, all I can say to anyone else reading this exchange
is: you'll just have to read what I actually wrote - all of it - and
decide for yourselves if Mr. Swiger is characterizing it honestly or not.
Once again, the URL is

     http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html

Follow the links to the second part and then to the appendix.  Feel free
to ask me any questions about anything - my mailbox is open.  Make up your
own minds as to the accuracy of what I wrote, and the truth of Mr. 
Swiger's assertions about what I wrote.  That's all I can ask. 


> Ironically, Stein admits the following in his diatribe against Berg as

    More rhetoric.  Mr. Swiger negatively characterizes what I wrote as a
"diatribe," and the word "admit" is frequently found in "revisionist" 
writing to convey the connotation that truth was only dragged out of
someone due to the irrefutable brilliant work of the revisionists.  Lots
of emotionally-loaded rhetoric, but when, oh when, will Mr. Swiger get
down to the technical facts here? 


> relates to the alleged Diesel "gas chambers." "They probably did die
> from asphyxiation, with other contributing factors." Has Berg not
> proven his point then??

    I'm afraid not.  Berg's point was that the use of diesels to kill by
_any_ means (within the time frame described by witnesses) was so
difficult as to allow us to conclude that it must be a myth.  First, I
showed that even high CO was not difficult at all - Berg's own technical
references described the very simple method used, namely misadjusting the
fuel feed.  But Berg also pooh-poohed the idea that asphyxiation could
have been the cause of death.  Read his paper.  Read my paper. 


> Stein then spins off in another direction on
> his "Holocoaster of Hoaxes" by suggesting that the "executioners" did
> not understand that Diesel exhaust was not the primary contributor to
> the death of the victims but the end result was the same so they
> continued with the process................ Yet another crass and
> mundane remark from a Holocaust mythologist!

    "Crass" and "mundane" are more loaded words delivering opinions about
the character of my writing, and "Holocaust mythologist" is a pure
personal attack.  Unfortunately they don't give much help in answering the
question: is what I wrote "true" or "false?"  Why is Mr. Swiger having
such _enormous_ difficulty tackling that issue?  When is Mr. Swiger going
to stop handwaving and actually get down to the nitty-gritty here? 


> The same type who would
> try to convince us that those savvy Germans designed crematoria in
> circa 1940, that operated exponentially more efficient than even the
> most state of the art, yet were so ignorant as to carry out a plan of
> genocide by use of Diesel exhaust which Stein himself admits would
> have been an ignorance in science.

    I addressed this point in my paper.  The Germans were not a hive mind
like the Borg from "Star Trek."  Not every German knew the same as every
other German.  The idea that all of this was the result of a highly
coordinated diabolical "master plan" drawn up by evil genius mad
scientists down to the very last technical detail is a strawman.  The
progress from shooting to gas vans to engine exhaust to Zyklon suggests to
me that the whole process was developed experimentally.  An ignorant
person is quite capable of trying something that is less than optimal but
still works. 

    Mr. Swiger is once again making a psychological argument here, not a
technical one.  And he still fails to quote anything I wrote, or any
documented references, to show where I went wrong.  Why is that, do you
suppose?  Well, once again all I can say is: read for yourself what I
wrote, and see if you think Mr. Swiger is telling the truth about it.  And
once again, that URL is: 

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html

Read both parts plus the appendix.  If you haven't got a web browser,
email me and I can send a copy to you in email.

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jan  6 08:23:34 PST 1997
Article: 93664 of soc.culture.german
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tezcat!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.german
Subject: Re: Message to Ken McMouth
Followup-To: soc.culture.german
Date: 6 Jan 1997 09:00:50 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <5ar0ii$f8f@access1.digex.net>
References: <32cdf84b.144565219@news.dmsc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:91401 soc.culture.german:93664


In article <32cdf84b.144565219@news.dmsc.net>,
Cliff Swiger (cswiger@westco.net) wrote:

[Swiger:]
>Cliff Swiger (I) wrote>>By examining the "eyewitness" testimony, and
>analyzing the engineering data with respect to Diesel combustion
>engines, researchers soon debunked the Diesel deaths as dramatic
>droll. With their backs against.......<<


[McVay:]
>>>Thank you, Mr. Swiger, for once again offering us this particular
>piece of claptrap. I have not yet seen any research which
>"debunked" the diesel gas chambers, although Friedrich Berg tried
>real hard before turning tail and bravely running away.<<

[Swiger:]
>I think the fact is you cannot "understand" carburation and ignition
>theory.  This is your problem.  I want to mention here a particular
>portion of Berg's treatise on Diesel engines and then I want you to
>realize just how ignorant you appear to those who understand
>engineering sciences.
>
>"That Figure 3 and Figure 5 are indeed typical of all Diesel engines
>over the last 50 years is attested to by the fact that these
>particular curves have been referred to and are still being referred
>to in countless journals and books on Diesel emissions to this very
>day."

    There's a bit of trickery involved in the above claim.  The _shape_ of
the curve may well be the same.  But for the purposes of this discussion,
the position of the curve along the Y-axis (percentage of various
compounds in the exhaust) is very important.  And we see that the position
of the curve is _not_ the same for all diesel engines: 



       Let's turn to that other reference that has given Mr. Berg a bit 
   of confusion, the paper by Holtz and Elliot in the 1941 Transactions 
   of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 63, Feb. 1941, 
   pp. 97-105.  On page 98, we find exactly the same graph referred to 
   in Berg's note 22.  But on page 99, we find some very interesting 
   numbers - some of the raw data used to generate the graph. 

       Engines A and B in the paper are four-cylinder four-stroke 
   engines. Engine B is rated at a maximum 70 brake horsepower; it has a 
   displacement of 226 cubic inches and maximum RPM of 2600. 

       Remember these crucial words from Berg's paper: "At full load, 
   which corresponds to a fuel/air ratio of 0.055, the oxygen 
   concentration in the exhaust of any Diesel is 4%."  It has already 
   been noted he is on very shaky ground in claiming this was true for
   "any" diesel, when it's clear that this graph was generated from these 
   two _specific_ engines.  But is he right about the rest? 

       Experiment B-12 ran the engine at 1400 RPM at a fuel/air ratio of 
   0.056 (one thousandth more than Berg's 0.55, but one hopes he won't 
   argue that the extra thousandth makes a difference).  Oxygen was 
   3.44%.  The difference between 3.44 and 4 doesn't look like much, but 
   in percentage terms, it's a difference of 14%.

       Is he right about full load?  Well, it depends on what he means 
   by "full load."  If he is talking about maximum rated torque at the 
   given RPM, yes.  But if he's talking about full power output, no.  
   Experiment B-12 was run with a net output of 37.8 HP.

       Is he right about "any diesel?"  Turn to the discusson by H. E. 
   Degler, University of Texas professor of mechanical engineering, on 
   p. 104: 

          "Engine manufacturers and operators have been increasing 
      jacket-water temperatures in recent years, some as high as 212 F at 
      atmospheric pressure, thus taking advantage of the latent-heat 
      cooling effect in addition to the sensible-heat removal.  These 
      higher temperatures will reduce the "chilling effect of direct 
      oxidation reactions," as mentioned by the authors, and assure 
                                                             ^^^^^^
      lower CO, decrease aldehydes, and reduce the free carbon in the
      ^^^^^^^^ 
      engine exhaust.

   So it seems there are some other considerations which affect exhaust 
   gas composition.  Without more information on exactly what kind of 
   engine was used, there's no way of knowing if Soviet diesels used 
   those higher water temperatures.  Yet from two engines Berg thinks he 
   knows what's true for "any diesel." 




>Can this penetrate your Zionist clogged cranium?  Now you can crow
>about all the Diesel "gas chambers" you want. Although NONE have ever
>been produced, what Berg did here was placate your nonsense that they
>did and then show you how it would not have made any difference based
>upon Diesel combustion analysis.

    Perhaps Prof. Degler's comment that an increase in jacket water
temperature reduces CO will penetrate Mr. Swiger's Nazi-clogged cranium. 
Remember this is from a 1941 paper which says it was a recent development
in America - but who knows about Russia?  So Berg's assumption about the
_position_ of the curve for "any diesel" is indeed invalid, even if the
_shape_ is the same.

    Or will Mr. Swiger now tell us that Prof. Degler (U. Texas, Mechanical
Engineering) was a Zionist stooge who was ignorant of engineering sciences
and didn't understand carburation and ignition theory as well as Swiger
does? 

    The Holtz-Elliot paper, by the way, generated the original graph
copied in the 1950 Elliot-Davis paper Berg used as a source for his own
work.  However, Berg apparently did not see fit to look up the earlier
work, and so did not take Prof. Degler's comments into account when making
his claim about "any diesel."  Sloppy research.


>>>After reading your particular version of Berg's silliness, perhaps
>some here will enjoy reading the response to Berg's paper - which,
>I must point out, uses Berg's own data to demonstrate his errors,
>which were legion. The report may be found at this
>URL:http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html<<
>
>Oh I'll check it out, thanks. If its like all the other "rebuttals"
>one finds at this sideshow, I doubt anyone will be impressed.

    The above rebuttal, of course, contained the excerpt above with
Degler's comment about the recent design change.  Does Mr. Swiger still
wish to assert that the curve _position_ (as opposed to curve shape) is
typical of ALL diesel engines, even ones with the lower jacket water
temperature? 

    I don't pretend to understand carburation and ignition theory the way
Mr. Swiger claims to - or the way Prof. Degler did.  But one thing I _do_
understand: when the data conflicts with the theory, it isn't the data
that needs revising. 

    Followups set to alt.revisionism.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jan  6 11:26:42 PST 1997
Article: 91433 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.radio.cz!voskovec.radio.cz!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!enews.sgi.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nikzor's Mike Stein
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 6 Jan 1997 13:12:20 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <5arfa4$k2b@access5.digex.net>
References: <32cf5f98.236560445@news.dmsc.net> <32cf5161.232920880@news.dmsc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Supercedes: <5aqa8r$pqt@access2.digex.net>
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.german:93677 alt.revisionism:91433

In article <32cf5f98.236560445@news.dmsc.net>,
and in a separately-posted article <32cf5161.232920880@news.dmsc.net>,
Cliff Swiger (cswiger@westco.net) wrote:

> Nikzor's Mike Stein, a "Talmud-thumping.....JOO" as he calls himself,
> claims to have publicized a great revelation and rebuttal to Friedrich
> Paul Berg's "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth within a Myth." But what
> actually appears in this harangue is nothing more than disagreement
> over minor technical data as regards the chemical reactions involved
> with Diesel combustion engines. 

    I'm sure Mr. Swiger would like people to think that this is all I did. 
Alas, he unaccountably failed to produce quotes from my work and show how
his characterization is true.

    To tell you the truth, I don't recall making a single claim about the
chemical reactions.  What I did was reproduce information taken from
technical papers describing the composition of exhaust gas from a diesel
engine under different conditions, and point out some things contained in
those papers that Friedrich Berg failed to mention.  I don't claim to have
a clue as to the exact chemical reactions that went on inside the
cylinders to produce that exhaust.

    The results are what they are.  Mr. Swiger's calling them a "harangue" 
will not magically change the results.  Since he did not cite any specific
material from my paper which was erroneous and demonstrate why it was
erroneous, I guess people will have to go read it for themselves and see
if they agree or not. 


> Certainly, in technical research, one is going to encounter extremes
> in data. But, industry attempts to establish standards, which are
> averages, for design parameters and operation, in effect, smoothing
> out the spikes. Standards, curves and tables do not represent 100%
> predictable data.  They do, however, establish a mean (average) by
> which engineers, designers, et al, can make professional decisions.

    Except that in this case, all the research is founded on the notion
that one is trying to make the best use of the engine for its legitimate
purpose.  Such research tells us precisely _nothing_ about what _can_ be
done if one intends to use the engine for an illegitimate purpose.  It is
(at the very least) a gross logical error to take averages and use them as
the basis for a claim that any large deviations from those averages are
impossible.


> I may make the statement that Earth's gravitational acceleration is
> 9.806 meters/second squared and be called a liar. 9.806 meters/second
> squared is an AVERAGE value that is commonly used in scientific
> calculations. But, in reality, I am a liar due to the fact that the
> effect of Earth's instananeous gravitational acceleration on a body is
> dependent upon that body's distance from the center of the Earth.
> Nonetheless, I'm a liar. This is Mike Stein's tactic.

    Once again, Mr. Swiger makes very loud and derisive claims about what
I wrote, but does not bother to back up his claims with any quotes.  How
_very_ curious.  Well, all I can say to anyone else reading this exchange
is: you'll just have to read what I actually wrote - all of it - and
decide for yourselves if Mr. Swiger is characterizing it honestly or not.
Once again, the URL is

     http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html

Follow the links to the second part and then to the appendix.  Feel free
to ask me any questions about anything - my mailbox is open.  Make up your
own minds as to the accuracy of what I wrote, and the truth of Mr. 
Swiger's assertions about what I wrote.  That's all I can ask. 


> Ironically, Stein admits the following in his diatribe against Berg as

    More rhetoric.  Mr. Swiger negatively characterizes what I wrote as a
"diatribe," and the word "admit" is frequently found in "revisionist" 
writing to convey the connotation that truth was only dragged out of
someone due to the irrefutable brilliant work of the revisionists.  Lots
of emotionally-loaded rhetoric, but when, oh when, will Mr. Swiger get
down to the technical facts here? 


> relates to the alleged Diesel "gas chambers." "They probably did die
> from asphyxiation, with other contributing factors." Has Berg not
> proven his point then??

    I'm afraid not.  Berg's point was that the use of diesels to kill by
_any_ means (within the time frame described by witnesses) was so
difficult as to allow us to conclude that it must be a myth.  First, I
showed that even high CO was not difficult at all - Berg's own technical
references described the very simple method used, namely misadjusting the
fuel feed.  But Berg also pooh-poohed the idea that asphyxiation could
have been the cause of death.  Read his paper.  Read my paper. 


> Stein then spins off in another direction on
> his "Holocoaster of Hoaxes" by suggesting that the "executioners" did
> not understand that Diesel exhaust was not the primary contributor to
> the death of the victims but the end result was the same so they
> continued with the process................ Yet another crass and
> mundane remark from a Holocaust mythologist!

    "Crass" and "mundane" are more loaded words delivering opinions about
the character of my writing, and "Holocaust mythologist" is a pure
personal attack.  Unfortunately they don't give much help in answering the
question: is what I wrote "true" or "false?"  Why is Mr. Swiger having
such _enormous_ difficulty tackling that issue?  When is Mr. Swiger going
to stop handwaving and actually get down to the nitty-gritty here? 


> The same type who would
> try to convince us that those savvy Germans designed crematoria in
> circa 1940, that operated exponentially more efficient than even the
> most state of the art, yet were so ignorant as to carry out a plan of
> genocide by use of Diesel exhaust which Stein himself admits would
> have been an ignorance in science.

    I addressed this point in my paper.  The Germans were not a hive mind
like the Borg from "Star Trek."  Not every German knew the same as every
other German.  The idea that all of this was the result of a highly
coordinated diabolical "master plan" drawn up by evil genius mad
scientists down to the very last technical detail is a strawman.  The
progress from shooting to gas vans to engine exhaust to Zyklon suggests to
me that the whole process was developed experimentally.  An ignorant
person is quite capable of trying something that is less than optimal but
still works. 

    Mr. Swiger is once again making a psychological argument here, not a
technical one.  And he still fails to quote anything I wrote, or any
documented references, to show where I went wrong.  Why is that, do you
suppose?  Well, once again all I can say is: read for yourself what I
wrote, and see if you think Mr. Swiger is telling the truth about it.  And
once again, that URL is: 

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html

Read both parts plus the appendix.  If you haven't got a web browser,
email me and I can send a copy to you in email.

    Posted/emailed.

    Followups set to alt.revisionism.


-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Mon Jan  6 16:24:17 PST 1997
Article: 91458 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!out2.nntp.cais.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More Swiger Lies: The Diesel Scam
Date: 4 Jan 1997 19:24:03 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 296
Message-ID: <5amsb3$cuc@access1.digex.net>
References: <32cb29d9.174179993@news.dmsc.net> <5ahtth$g3l@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32CD38DB.3E01@rio.com> <32ce0d69.149972035@news.dmsc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <32ce0d69.149972035@news.dmsc.net>,
Cliff Swiger  wrote:
>	On Fri, 03 Jan 1997 16:50:35 +0000, Chuck Ferree
> wrote:
>
>I've dropped in on this Nikzor site several times lately. They have
>quite a nice file on me there along with my old buddies Kleinsorg and
>Koch. I also read this so called rebuttal to Freidrich Paul Berg's
>examination of the Diesel "gas chambers." I read nothing there of
>merit but I would recommend lurkers check out both sides of the
>argument to see for themselves how incompetent the staff at Nikzor
>really is with their emotions verses reality tactics.

    Well, as the author of that rebuttal, I think I should point out that
what you have written above is empty namecalling.  Lots of belittling
dismissal, but not a single documented fact or arguments presented to show
why there is nothing of merit. 

    Mr. Swiger, when reading the rebuttal did you happen to notice that it
is broken up into sections, and what Chuck posted is only the first of
two?  There is a "Next" button at the bottom.  More importantly, there is
an "Appendix" button which will get you some highly emotional tables of
experimental results and references to the same hysterical technical
papers that Berg himself used (and abused) in his own writing.  I
absolutely agree that the lurkers should visit the site, reading the
_entire_ paper (including the appendix, which is where the real technical
meat is found) and making up their own minds about the accuracy of your
characterization of what I wrote.  Start with

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html

Go from the above to part 2, then to the appendix and follow the "Next"
links from there.


>Now onward to your post!!!!

    If you would like to discuss the technical issues involved, I would be
only too happy to do so.  Friedrich Berg seems to have left us.  But
please don't just discuss the post - remember, it's only the first section
of a much longer work and was never meant to stand on its own.  Go to
Nizkor and read _all_ of what I wrote on the subject.


>>Still, people are encouraged to read all the details. One thing 
>>"scientific" Holocaust deniers like Berg
>>and Fred Leuchter count on is the fact that many non-scientists can't 
>>follow scientific debates, and
>>assume that if it is dressed up in scientific terms, it must be right. 
>
>This is purely an ad hominem argument, Chuck. Basically you're calling
>people ignorant that may not understand scientific terminology and
>evidence that show the Holocaust is a myth.

    What I am saying is that most people do not know how to look
critically for signs of fraud in those claims that "scientific evidence" 
shows that the Holocaust is a myth - or, for that matter, fraud in
"scientific" arguments that appear on their TV screens.  How many people
do you suppose know the real reason why hospitals dispense acetomenaphin
(Tylenol) rather than aspirin? 

    Do _you_ understand the technical issues involved here?  In this post
you give no evidence of it.  My statement above was not simply an ad
hominem argument because I proceeded to go through the detailed work of
showing the methodological errors in Berg's paper.  I put it in terms that
I hope will be clearly understandable to a reader not experienced in
reading technical material of this nature.  You assert loudly, but you
have yet to show where I was wrong on any technical issue. I repeat: you
are cordially invited to do so, as is anyone else. 


>You might encourage people
>to "read all the details," but you sure as Hell wouldn't want them to
>understand them now would you? If that were to be the case, your
>Holocaust crap goes sliding over the S-trap.  

    More empty assertion (and emotional ad hominem attack).  I tried very
hard to write in a way that makes the technical details accessible to the
lay reader.  If you would like to discuss those technical details,
bringing references to the table, I will promptly retract any errors you
find - I certainly do not claim to be perfect.  If you or anyone else
still has trouble understanding a point made in the paper, I will do my
best to answer any questions.


>>But there are many other scientific
>>debates we see today - pollution, cancer, global warming, etc. - which 
>>enter into the political arena.
>>Some of these arguments are made to support a hidden ideological 
>>agenda, and the science is
>>dishonest. We hope that following the full argument will help people 
>>realize that just because
>>something comes dressed up as "science" doesn't mean you should stop 
>>thinking critically about
>>what you're being told. 
>
>Chuckie boy, science is not dishonest; theories sometimes are.

    Actually, by "dishonest science" I meant something pretending to
follow scientific method, but in fact violating it.  Yes, any theories
based upon such dishonest violation of scientific method would also be
dishonest. 

    But this isn't really relevant to the substance, is it?  Although if
you would prefer to go after cheap semantic points rather than discussing
the technical substance of what I wrote, I can certainly deal with that
too.  I feel it only fair to warn you, however, that I'm one of those
sneaky Talmud-thumpin', pilpul-pushin' JOOS.  Now, think carefully: are
you _sure_ you want to get into _that_ kind of debate with me? >:-)>


>Nonetheless, you're going to extremes here with subjects we are still
>learning about (pollution, cancer, global warming, et al).

    My point was that people should not blindly swallow something about
these issues - or _any_ issue - just because someone plays "Science Says."


>With
>carburation and ignition of combustible gases the issue is more
>concrete.

    If you had visited the Nizkor website and read _all_ of what I wrote,
you would know that I get very concrete indeed, citing chapter and verse
>from  the very same technical references that Berg claimed proved his
thesis.  So tell me, when are you going to do the same instead of loud
handwaving? 


>Engineering is the practical application of scientific
>principles and that is what we're dealing with here.

    I wish!  One of those scientific principles is that conclusions should
be based on a reasonably representative set of observations.  Another is
that one should not make unwarranted assumptions.  Another is that all
data should be taken into account. Another is that alternative theories
should be honestly and adequately examined.  Alas, Berg the engineer
failed to apply these principles. 

    He made claims about "any diesel" based on observations from a couple
of American-made diesels.  In the discussion at the end of the paper, one
of the comments discussed some specific recent design features that
reduced carbon monoxide emissions.  Therefore his observations were not
reasonably representative, since Berg is not entitled to make the
unwarranted assumption that the Soviet diesels had such features.  Berg
failed to take into account the inconvenient information about the fairly
unsophisticated method his cited authors used to achieve high carbon
monoxide levels.  Berg also handwaved through the toxicology, glossing
over possible causes of death other than acute carbon monoxide poisoning. 

    It's all there on Nizkor, with checkable references.  Deal with it.


>I want to remind
>you that Holocaust mythologists like yourself are attempting to
>overturn decades of tried, tested and proven data tables as relates to
>Diesel combustion. Guten Gluck!

    Overturn?  Once again I must ask: have you actually read _all_ of what
I wrote?  I find it harder and harder to believe that you did.  I took the
very same tried, tested, and proven data from the very same technical
references that Berg cited and showed how Berg _misused_ them.  It's in
the appendix.  Check it out.


>>Therefore (reasons Berg) contrary to the assertion of historians, the 
>>victims were not killed by
>>carbon monoxide. 
>
>How imbecillic of you, Chuck. Berg merely points out that it is highly
>improbable (if not indeed impossible) that individuals were executed
>according to the alleged means.

    Funny, I could have sworn that I had just said that very same thing,
just in different words.  I was merely summarizing the arguments prior to
examining them in detail.


>The Germans may have indeed murdered
>Jews as you claim. But, the "eyewitness" testimony in this
>circumstance is ludicrous upon examination from just this one
>perspective: The chemical reaction of Diesel combustion.

    If you had only bothered to read all of what I wrote, you would have
seen that at the end, I conclude based on the eyewitness testimony that
though Berg's methodology was shot through with flaws, he was probably
right on one factual point: the cause of death was not carbon monoxide
poisoning, but asphyxiation.  Dr. Pfannenstiel explicitly made that
diagnosis.  Berg referred to Pfannenstiel's testimony but did not cite his
diagnosis.  At best that is carelessness; at worst, dishonesty. 


>>For example, in Usenet alt.revisionism article 
>><2vt3du$t0b@mary.iia.org>,
>>Friedrich Berg wrote: "[Scott] Mullins should try to run a 
>>heavily-loaded 150 HP engine, that is still
>>small, with a propeller or fan in a closed loop without making lots 
>>and lots of noise." 
>
>I think reference is made here based upon the fact that in order for a
>Diesel combustion engine to emmit a substantial amount of carbon
>monoxide it must be placed under a "heavy" load. In this condition the
>engine would produce excessive noise. Couple this with much of the so
>called "testimony" that the National Socialists carried out their
>genocide in utmost secrecy within the camps.

    Your explanation of what Berg was getting at with the comment about
the noise does make some sense, and I admit that it did not occur to me. 
However, the secrecy argument is a familiar bit of sophistry.  They never
did achieve complete secrecy - certainly the shootings in Russia also made
lots of noise and were well-known to the locals even though the Germans
sent reports back in top-secret code (intercepted and deciphered by the
British) and then considered the matter so sensitive that they sent the
information by courier even though they had no idea that their code had
been broken.  Treblinka was out in the boondocks. 


>Certainly this is not the
>crux of showing that the "Diesel Death" allegation is a farce. The
>chemical reaction is the central focus.

    Yes, well, as I keep saying, any time you would like to discuss it
with real facts and references rather than empty handwaving is fine with
me.  Of course you might have some difficulty since I based my work on the
very same technical papers that Berg cited as evidence for his paper. 
It's just that I read the parts that Berg neglected to tell you about.


>>In the same article, Berg also wrote, "Since the load of any fan or 
>>propeller varies non-linearly with
>>RPM, it is still quite a trick to choose the right sized fan or 
>>propeller. Ivan with the big wrench
>>won't know how." 
>>
>>Here Berg is actually arguing two contradictory things at once. If 
>>this had been done, "Ivan," of
>>course, wouldn't have done it. It was the Nazis who created the 
>>system, not the Russians or
>>Ukranians. The Russians just built the original engine. The Nazis 
>>would have modified it. 
>
>>Is Berg saying the Nazis wouldn't have known how to do this? 
>
>Berg is saying that there would be a lot of engineering involved to
>exert the proper load on an engine by use of an opposing impeller.

    Thank you, I like to think I have some small understanding of English. 
I don't dispute this point; my question was rhetorical.  It's just that
Berg elsewhere tells us what brilliant engineers the Germans were, and as
it happens running under load is _not_ the only means of increasing the
richness of the fuel mixture.  So here he pretends the standard history
would require that it be unsophisticated Russians who came up with the
method.  Therefore my point about Berg raising specious and contradictory
arguments stands. 


>You're not going to be able to take a Soviet tank engine and race the
>engine (unopposed) and produce the carbon monoxide levels necessary to
>validate your whimsical Holocaust nonsense. Grow up Chuck.

    The very same authors who produced the tried, tested, and proven data
that Berg so proudly waved also told us _precisely_ how they achieved a
rich mixture which produced the high carbon monoxide levels they reported.
They said not a word about a propeller, a dynamometer, or any other means
of inducing a load.  They simply misadjusted the fuel feed.  Oops!  You
know, I bet that's something even Ivan with a little wrench could handle. 
Pattle et al. came up with another terribly difficult method of increasing
the fuel-air ratio: partially obstructing the air intake.  Oops again.

    Did you miss that part in my paper the way Berg managed to miss that
same part when he was gathering his "facts?"  And did you also somehow
miss the part of my paper where I said that in the final analysis, based
on the eyewitness testimony I accept that the cause of death was _not_
acute carbon monoxide poisoning?  Berg handwaved through the other
possible causes of death.

    I do hope I'm not boring you, but as I have said several times
already, any time you want to start bringing real technical references to
the table and discuss the matter honestly, I'll be waiting.  Of course
this means addressing _all_ of what I wrote.  It also means not quoting
out of context or leaving out the bits that don't support your case, as
Berg did. 

    I did the tedious work of doublechecking Berg's references, and
brought forward the raw data and quotations to show how Berg misused them. 
I also pointed out holes in his reasoning.  If you missed the continuation
sections of my paper, including the appendix, please go back and read
them.  So far all you've done is handwave, substituting assertion and
sarcasm for documented data and logical argument.  Not good enough. 

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jan  7 01:20:15 PST 1997
Article: 91507 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Pilpul Shel Hevel
Date: 4 Jan 1997 20:16:22 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <5amvd6$e3m@access1.digex.net>
References: <5ahb5p$i70@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5ajuhb$od6@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <5ajuhb$od6@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   ci882@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Rubin Friedman) writes:
>>  
>>  Michael P. Stein (mstein@access5.digex.net) writes:
>>  > In article <5ag6q0$2r@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>  > 
>>  >>The traditional Talmudic mode of argument, the pilpul shel hevel, is
>>  >>aregumentation based on analogy and approximation and not on the
>>  >>syllogism, the basis of classical logic.  The pilpul is the
>>  >>quintessentially Jewish mode of argumentation.  It is the basis for all
>>  >>Talmudic discourse.
>>  > 
>>  >     I hate to break this news to you, Mr. Blackmore, but it is the basis
>>  > for legal discourse in general - and remember, the Talmud is a work on law
>>  > and legal reasoning. [snip]

>>  >     I suppose I should not be too surprised if you take this as proof that
>>  > DA JOOS control the world....
>
>COMMENT:  When have I ever implied this, Mr. Stein?  Please stop resorting
>to strawman tactics, it is beneath you.--rb

    I don't see it as a true strawman, as it was a somewhat sarcastic gibe
rather than a misrepresentation of any argument you had actually made.
But I will say in all candor that I think you have a few beams in your own
eye to clear out before talking about motes in mine. 

    Would you like to address the point I raised about legal reasoning,
and the speciousness of your own comment about Jewish modes of
argumentation?


>>  > [Because!  I!  Say!  So!]
>>  > certainly seems to be your method of argumentation around here. 
>>  > And I don't see that it has much relation to classical logic either. 
>>  > 
>>  
>>  
>>  The logic expressed in Blackmore's post is best summarized in the phrase
>>  "Cogito, Eggo sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle."
>
>COMMENT:  Whoever asked for your two cents? Go buy some bubble gum
>with it.  it should provide you with a more resourceful way to flap your 
>gums.--rb

    Speaking of things that ought to be beneath one....

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Tue Jan  7 08:36:47 PST 1997
Article: 91528 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Subject: Re: 970102: Music to our ears!
Date: 4 Jan 1997 20:46:54 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <5an16e$etl@access1.digex.net>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:91528 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:3308

In article ,
E. Zundel Repost  wrote:
>------------ BEGIN ZUNDELGRAM MESSAGE ------------
>
>January 2, 1997
>
>Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
>
>Well, a new year is here, and I am happy to report that a new wind is
>blowing.  So far, only in gusts- but, boy, does it feel good to fill your
>lungs with air and watch the cob webs swirl!

    You have cobwebs in your lungs?  Have you seen a doctor about this
condition? 


>Remember how I mentioned in a ZGrams just a few weeks ago that Ernst
>suggested to the Swiss banks they ought to ". . . invest in Revisionism"
>since doing so would be, by far, the cheaper, smarter route to go than to
>". . . succumb to  blackmail regarding so-called Nazi loot"?
>
>Ernst was the one, in fact,  who has called the Holocaust ". . . parasitism
>elevated to a state of doctrine" for some time.  Since 1981, he has openly
>called it an extortion racket.

[lots of rhetoric snipped]

>Ernst Zundel of Toronto, Canada - a "crank"
>whom no one in his right mind,  takes seriously?
>
>Well.  That is not how the cookie crumbles.
>
>Day before yesterday, the President of Switzerland drew himself up to his
>full height on his last day in office, and said, OFFICIALLY, as the first
>leader in the so-called "free" world -  what Ernst Zundel has said all
>along!

Logical fallacies contained in the above three paragraphs:

    Appeal to authority.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc (insinuation that the Swiss president was
    influenced by Zundel).

    False generalization (that even if what is said is
    true of the Swiss case, that makes all of Zundel's claim, which
    involves far more than the Swiss case, true).  This fallacy is
    reiterated in other text which I have deleted for brevity.


[snip]

>The President of Switzerland went even further.  He pointed out that
>criticism of Swiss banks and the country's war role was not only
>
>". . . due to the nature of the revelations but equally to the not very
>pure intentions which lay at their origin."
>
[snip again]


>Said Swiss President Delamuraz, who doubles up as economics minister and,
>hence, has the credentials,

    More appeal to authority.


>that the initial Swiss response to criticism of
>the Swiss banking system had been "naive" - exactly what Ernst said in one
>of his newsletters when this matter first came to the fore.

    And again.


>Delamuraz:  "No one . . . appears to see that apart from dogged research
>into historical truth there is also a strong political desire to
>destabilize and compromise Switzerland," he said.
>
>"This has one link in Washington and another in London, where it was a
>matter of nothing else than trying to demolish Switzerland's status as a
>financial center," Delamuraz is reported to have said to a reporter of this
>French-language Swiss newspaper.

    Logical fallacy alert: being economics minister does not give
Delamuraz any credentials whatsoever in mindreading, which is what is what
seems required in order to make this claim.  Or does he have _physical
evidence_ such as documents which show such a conspiracy?


[Mention of IKEA and Marco Polo magazine incidents deleted for brevity.]


>"These are just two examples of Holocaust terrorism to extort behavior
>favorable and profitable to current, not past, Jewish interests. [...]

    News flash: Jews are not the only people who do this.  The Arabs used
oil as a weapon, and had their own boycott against companies who did
business with Israel.  The US is currently under fire for Helms-Burton;
Clinton has once again postponed enforcement.  But is it the Jews that
benefit from that one?


>Does the common man in the street need "hate laws"?  Or does the Holocaust
>Promotion Lobby need them sorely?  You ask yourself that question.

    Here's another question to ask yourself: if, as Ms. Rimland
insinuates, these laws are hindering the "revisionist" cause so horribly,
why is it that they cannot circumvent all of them by the simple expedient
of publishing their works in the United States, where they are fully
protected?  Here in the US, should we not be seeing great "revisionist" 
victories since there is no legal barrier to such activity? 


>You
>have in Switzerland a country that WILLINGLY criminalized skepticism about
>the Auschwitz "gas chambers" a mere few years ago, thereby legally painting
>itself in a corner!
>
>The Swiss are in a fix now.  They have outlawed Holocaust skepticism and
>questioning the details of so-called "gassing" stories and other
>fabrications.  Was it done by forces behind the scenes who knew the "Nazi
>Gold" scheme was coming?

    Oooh, conspiracies, conspiracies!  When you haven't got any evidence,
insinuate anyway.


>With this "hate law" in place, the Swiss disarmed
>themselves before the struggle for truth in their history even got going!
>How can the banks play the Revisionist card now?  Publish their findings,
>which will have to be Revisionist information if they are honest findings,
>and go directly to jail?

    Logical fallacy alert: the property claims are entirely independent of
any death tolls.  Either money stashed by and looted from Jews is there or
it is not.  This is true regardless of whether those Jews were alive or
dead at the end of WWII. 

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Wed Jan  8 05:43:49 PST 1997
Article: 91722 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!solace!mn6.swip.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 7 Jan 1997 23:56:08 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <5av9d8$e8m@access1.digex.net>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <+gmAtnANipzyEw8n@bebbo.demon.co.uk> <5amk56$ce9@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:91722 alt.censorship:114160 alt.politics.nationalism.white:42674 alt.politics.white-power:55093

In article <5amk56$ce9@lex.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>Do you know how many British died during the war without consulting a book?

    Nearly all of them, I should think.  Dying does not take all _that_
much skill, you know....

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jan  8 16:18:36 PST 1997
Article: 91779 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nova.thezone.net!hookup!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Marxist Comradery at Nizkor?
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 8 Jan 1997 11:47:50 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <5b0j3m$rqt@access5.digex.net>
References: <32CDAA4A.6414@phoenix.net> <5aqhnq$39j@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32D1C596.716A@phoenix.net> <5b06i5$k1o@news.usaor.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.skinheads:48284 alt.politics.nationalism.white:42725 alt.politics.white-power:55139 alt.revisionism:91779

In article <5b06i5$k1o@news.usaor.net>, Roger Hughes  wrote:
>In message <5aviar$146$2@nadine.teleport.com> - 
>cfaatz@teleport.com (Chris Faatz) writes:
>
>:>Hey, I'm not involved in Nizkor, but I'll come out and say it--better
>:>socialism than fascism any day.
>
>Socialism and Marxism are different things. What Nizkor and their Jewish 
>benefactors want is the same thing which the Jews created in Russian in 
>1917: a totalitarian Marxist society ruled by Jews.

    I am forced to confess that I do want a Jewish-ruled Marxist society. 
Last November I wrote in for for Rufus T. Firefly....


>Oh, I know they give lip-service to freedom of speech, etc., but I am firmly 
>convinced that if they could silence their critics, they would do it in a 
>minute - using extra-legal or even illegal means.

    Evidence?  We don' need no steenkin' evidence....

    I supposed I should be insulted, as this would imply that Mr. Hughes
thinks nobody at Nizkor is capable of forging cancel messages.


>You scoff? Well, I'd 
>wager last week's paycheck that the Nizkooks get regular cash infusions from 
>the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

    Ooh!  Can I have a piece of that action?

    One question, though - if I win, will it be enough to cover the cost
of postage in sending it to me?


>Of course, the ADL was caught red-handed 
>a couple of years ago with illegal police files on White racialists AND 
>several Black organizations, environmentalists, not to mention some leftists. 
>They even maintained secret files on American politicians! 

    *gasp*  So do American politicians.  It's called "opposition
research."


>The ADL is constantly pushing the law to bizarre, Talmudic, limits and using 
>ever means available to shut-up ANYONE the Jews don't like. The Nizkooks are 
>part and parcel of this Jewish intimidation and censorship effort.

    Which no doubt explains why Ken McVay testified before the Canadian
Parliament in opposition to controls on the Internet.

    But heck, why worry about such silly things as facts? 


>They kind of world they seek is one where any criticism of "God's Chosen 
>People" is forbidden by law; the Jews could not be contradicted in any 
>area; "anti-Semitism" would be a capital crime; whatever the Jews say is the 
>"truth."

    I'm a Jew.

    I have publicly accused other Jews of posting falsehoods.

    Now watch poor Mr. Hughes's brain explode as he tries to resolve that
contradiction.... 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Wed Jan  8 16:18:37 PST 1997
Article: 91813 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.alfred.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Leuchter and Giwerkook Central
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 5 Jan 1997 10:51:27 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <5aoilv$c8h@access4.digex.net>
References: <32cf4117.22231333@news.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:91813 alt.usenet.kooks:32406

In article <32cf4117.22231333@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgiwer@gte.net) under the name
Doc Marten  wrote:
>	One of the most amusing things to note is the Nizkook Kentral
>condemnation of Leuchter for not being a scientist and the
>pronouncements of non-scientists explaining science to those who are
>scientists.

    The condemnation of Leuchter is for making a false claim of being an
engineer in order to trick people into giving his claims more weight than
they should have.

    But why should confessed liar Matt Giwer tell the truth about this
when he has lied so many other times? 

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lies/lie-openly-admitted.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/index-lies.html
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Wed Jan  8 16:18:38 PST 1997
Article: 91818 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Bad German "Gene"
Date: 5 Jan 1997 19:33:50 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <5aph9e$oo7@access5.digex.net>
References: <32d16aa4.3187231@news.inetport.com> <5ap38n$3gj@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5ap38n$3gj@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>   mcurtis@inetport.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
> 
>  We asked for the citation from Goldhagen so that we could share in the
>  knowlege and the actually possibility that _you_ might not be sreading
>  lies your handlers are sending you.  At this point you have seen the
>  many requests for the page number.  We have seen nada from you. [...]
>  
>  What's the page number?
>  
>  (I actually think he is referring to a psychological concept known as
>  a human's dark side.But then he isn't really very intellectual so I
>  could be wrong.)
>  
>>>>>
>COMMENT:  How could someone with such a limited intelligence decide 
>whether I am very intellectual or not?

    By reading your posts?


>Very strange.....I will get around to posting the relevant
>portions from Goldhagen's bookin due time.

    A simple yes or no question: at the time you posted your comment about
Goldhagen, had you read his book?  Yes or no? 


>Remember, patience is a virtue.--rb

    So is knowing what you're talking about.

    Had you read his book at the time you commented?  Yes or no?

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Thu Jan  9 08:38:39 PST 1997
Article: 91922 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!wesley.videotron.net!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-paris.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Blackmore's research
Supersedes: <5apht6$p3t@access5.digex.net>
Date: 5 Jan 1997 19:45:34 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <5aphve$p60@access5.digex.net>
References: <32ce8665.1525209@news.inetport.com> <5antac$2so@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5antac$2so@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   mcurtis@inetport.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
> ibokor@metz.une.edu.au (ibokor) wrote:
>As other deniers we have met here, "rblackmore" has long
>ago dispensed with any research. Bland assertion and fabrication
>are much easier and harbours no danger of prejudices, 
>preconceptions and biases being challenged by the cold
>light of reality.
>
>d.A.
>
>  Research IS work.
>>>>>
>COMMENT:  Well, why don't you try it sometime?--rb

     How is it then, Mr. Blackmore, that Mr. Curtis is able to provide
large citations from references without (as you insinuate) research, while
you always plead that you must get back to us with your evidence?  (And
often either fail to do so or turn out to be inaccurate.)

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jan  9 08:38:40 PST 1997
Article: 91949 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.InterGate.BC.CA!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.aloha.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-hub.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Nizkor: Who the Hell are these guys?
Supersedes: <5b1te6$crk@access4.digex.net>
Date: 8 Jan 1997 23:59:48 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <5b1u04$d3s@access4.digex.net>
References: <199701082301.PAA23108@mailmasher.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:91949 alt.politics.white-power:55234 alt.politics.nationalism.white:42833

In article <199701082301.PAA23108@mailmasher.com>,
Mark Raven   wrote:
>Mike Curtis wrote:...
>>
>> WE WANT TO RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!  There is a major problem. We don't
>> ever agree with each other. We aren't associated in any way. There are
>> no profits made. No one gets paid. So why worry, be happy.

    I'm sorry, but I have to make a confession.  I _have_ received
compensation for my work here.  Ken treated me to a bottle of Okonagon
Springs porter.


>Ahh, another one working for free.  How DO they all get by?

    We all get fat stipends from ZOG, paid out of profits from usurious
lending to the goyim.  Don't you know ANYTHING? 


>One other
>question, if you don't "ever" agree with one another, then which ones among
>you are the ones who disagree with the Official Holocaust (TM) story? 
>
>I'll be waiting for the answer to that one.  For a while, probably. 

    Until you identify THE Official Holocaust (TM) story, it is difficult
to answer your question.  Do you agree with THE Official Revisionist Story
(TM)? 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jan  9 13:29:14 PST 1997
Article: 91961 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.InterGate.BC.CA!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Nizkor: Who the Hell are these guys?
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 8 Jan 1997 23:46:54 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <5b1t7u$cp2@access4.digex.net>
References: <01bbfd6b$23ea5b70$357213cc@server> <32d47013.11126541@news.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:91961 alt.usenet.kooks:32408

In article <32d47013.11126541@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgiwer@gte.net) under the name
Elothem  wrote:
>On 8 Jan 97 13:52:00 GMT, "Anthony Sabatini" 
>wrote in alt.revisionism:
>
>>What do the people at Nizkor do with the "files" they seem to be keeping on
>>people?
>
>	Keeping files on people is standard procedures for Canadians. 
>
>	It is more important to keep in mind they are altered without
>notification of same.  

    It is also important to keep in mind that Matt Giwer is a proven and
self-confessed liar who has told this lie many times but not once produced
a shred of evidence for it, such as a comparison of the DejaNews version
vs. the Nizkor version of the post. 

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lies/lie-openly-admitted.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/index-lies.html

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access4.digex.net Thu Jan  9 13:29:14 PST 1997
Article: 91970 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.InterGate.BC.CA!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!uunet!in2.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Proof that Matt Giwer wears diapers!
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 9 Jan 1997 00:23:47 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <5b1vd3$dpc@access4.digex.net>
References: <32ced522.5150921@199.0.216.204> <32d5b58c.11935861@199.0.216.204> <5akl5b$l9a@itssrv1.ucsf.edu> <32cdf8fd.191033324@news.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <32cdf8fd.191033324@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgiwer@gte.net) under the name
Doc Marten  wrote:
>On 4 Jan 1997 04:09:15 GMT, brainh@itsa.ucsf.edu (Brian Harmon) wrote
>in alt.revisionism:
>>Since Zyklon-B was in common use as a fumigant before
>>the gassings started, the camps already posessed all
>>the equipment they needed to handle it safely.  
>
>	You too??
>
>		         thought of an
>                                     expedient new
>                                     method based on the
>                                     camp's own
>                                     experience. The
>                                     buildings, many of
>                                     them former Polish
>                                     army barracks, were
>                                     full of insects, and the
>                                     camp administration
>                                     had previously
>                                     brought in the
>                                     Hamburg pesticide
>                                     firm of Tesch and
>                                     Stabenow to get rid
>                                     of them. 
>                                           Two experts
>                                     had fumigated
>                                     particular buildings
>                                     with a patented
>                                     insecticide, Zyklon B,
>
>	Fumigation was done by hired professionals.  Don't you ever
>read the FAQ on Auschwitz prepared by Nizkook Kentral?  Of course, the
>Nizkooks are lying but then you will have to call them that if you
>want your claim to be accepted.  

    Matt Giwer wears diapers.

    How do I know this?

    He wore diapers when he was an infant.

    And it is a Giwer Rule that anyone who does something a certain way at
a particular time MUST continue to do it that way forever after.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jan 10 16:00:32 PST 1997
Article: 92070 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Bad German "Gene"
Date: 9 Jan 1997 22:55:10 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <5b4eiu$o0n@access5.digex.net>
References: <5apb4l$6d7@news.enter.net> <5aqndg$nrp@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <5aqndg$nrp@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) writes:
>> [Regarding Blackmore's claim about Goldhagen's book:]
>>  	Go buy the book.  Read it.  Come back with either a citation or an 
>>  admission that, once again you were fabricating.
>>  
>>>>>
>I never fabrication, and yes, we shall address this issue again soon.-rb

    Here is an issue you can address right now, without searching the
book.

    At the time you made your statement about Goldhagen's book, had you
read it yourself?  Yes or no?

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Fri Jan 10 20:06:50 PST 1997
Article: 92086 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.rmii.com!thoth.nilenet.com!news.intersurf.net!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Opinion of what really happened (Was: Why is "Holocaust Denial" a bad thing?)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 12:31:37 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <5b5udp$ska@access5.digex.net>
References:  <01bbfd06$c60c3320$5d7213cc@server> <32d3aab4.1572806@news.zilker.net> <01bbfdc9$d0f1c520$4f7213cc@server>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <01bbfdc9$d0f1c520$4f7213cc@server>,
Anthony Sabatini  wrote:
>Mike Curtis  wrote in article
><32d3aab4.1572806@news.zilker.net>...
>> "Anthony Sabatini"  wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Well, as I said in another post, I believe that much of World War II's
>> >history has been altered to suit the needs of the winners, i.e. the
>Allies.
>> 
>> How? Make a case for it. Personal opinions are fine that they are
>> meaningless if you wish to revise history.
>
>But that is what this theory is: a personal opinion; didn't you understand
>that? Didn't you read the subject line? Do the words "I believe..." in any
>way sound like, "I assert as fact that..."?

"You can suggest anything you like. And you can state any opinion you
like.  The only problem is this stupid thing called 'reality' that keeps
getting in your way. " - A. Sabatini

[snip]

>> This is rhetoric. No case is being made here folks.
>
>Once again, this is a discussion group. It is not a court of law, nor is it
>some laboratory where scientific experiments are conducted and recorded. A
>"case", as you put, need not be "made".

"You can suggest anything you like. And you can state any opinion you
like.  The only problem is this stupid thing called 'reality' that keeps
getting in your way. " - A. Sabatini



>> Support your ideas with historical substantiation and documentation.
>> That is how you convice an historian.
>
>I see no "historians" here to "convince". All I see are a bunch of people
>giving their own opinions, insulting each other, threatening each other,
>and generally showing off their juvenile traits (with the Nizkorites
>leading the pack).

"You can suggest anything you like. And you can state any opinion you
like.  The only problem is this stupid thing called 'reality' that keeps
getting in your way. " - A. Sabatini

    Intellectual consistency is a bitch, ain't it?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Sat Jan 11 07:21:52 PST 1997
Article: 92188 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.alfred.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-hub.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: BEHOLD -  The Holocaust House of Cards
Date: 8 Jan 1997 16:28:24 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <5b13ho$db8@access5.digex.net>
References: <32dcbdff.6456049@199.0.216.204> <32e27822.8249020@199.0.216.204>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <32e27822.8249020@199.0.216.204>,
tom moran  wrote:
>
>	As this chapter of the Holocaust story has it, the Germans
>consistently used Soviet engines as the instruments for generating
>carbon monoxide.
>
>	The first thing we would have to recognize is this would
>challenge any concept of a master plan where the instruments of death
>were systematically thought out.

    Well, Tommy, if you ever find someone who has such a concept of such a
master plan, I do hope you'll put him or her straight.  As for myself, the
only people I ever met who talked about such a conception were Holocaust
deniers who weren't playing with a full deck.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Sun Jan 12 06:34:25 PST 1997
Article: 92418 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!dciteleport.com!worldnet.att.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay
Date: 12 Jan 1997 01:52:16 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <5ba1n0$hae@access5.digex.net>
References: <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com> <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server>,
Anthony Sabatini  wrote:
>Ourobouros wrote in article <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com>...
>> Would you please remove all of my posts off your site?
>> 
>> Your cooperation would be appreciated.
>> 
>> Ourobouros.
>> 
>
>Ha! Forget it, Ourobouros. These guys at Nizkor believe that have a moral,
>ethical and legal right to archive information in such a manner that can
>easily lead messages to be misconstrued and twisted as to their original
>intent.
>
>I again challenge the Nizkorites to explain an easy method whereby someone
>browsing their archives can reconstruct a thread so that someone's comments
>have the benefit of their proper context with respect to previous messages
>and responses.

    http://www.dejanews.com


>AFAIK, the purpose of this archive is the equivalent of having a sword over
>your head. It exists as an implied threat so they can use your own words
>against you (twisted and deformed, of course!).

    Really?  Perhaps you can produce just one example of how the archives
have ever been used in a way that distorts the true meaning of the
original words.

    It is true that your own words can be used against you.  The real
question is whether they are used fairly.  If you deny saying something,
the archive can be used to prove you did.  If you tell a lie, the archive
can be used to prove you did.  Do you see something wrong with using the
archive to prove something which is in fact true?  Of course, you may also
use it in your defense if someone claims you said something which you did
not.


>With it, they give the
>impression that Big Brother is watching, so you'd better be careful what
>you say.

    I am careful what I say no matter who is or isn't watching.  I happen
to think that I ought only to say those things I am not ashamed to say,
and would not be afraid to defend.


>I find this totally despicable and reprehensible, not to mention
>dishonest. (But don't worry, I am trying to give them a taste of their own
>medicine, using their own quotes from DejaNews in an attempt to show them
>what they are doing. I urge others to follow suit.)

    But who is doing what you've been doing with DejaNews?  You _have_
taken things out of context.  The archives are there in full context - the
_potential_ for abuse is there, but then it's there in privately-saved
posts as well.  However, what you are doing is showing people (including
me) what we _could_ be doing if we were dishonest.  Find me one example of
where someone you did it to _actually_ did it - that is, quoted something
of yours out of context in a way which distorted the meaning.

    You do know the difference between "are" and "could be," do you not?


>Of course, the Nizkorites will feign ignorance

    My ignorance is not feigned.  I am genuinely unaware of anyone
involved with Nizkor taking words out of context deliberately.  As I said
once before, if you have such examples, let me know.  I will have very
strong words with whoever is responsible.  But as I also said before, you
should really provide sufficient context in your posts, and DejaNews
already provides a backup server to read threads from.


>or strongly protest
>otherwise. It is to be expected considering their well-documented tactics.

    Perhaps you could point to some of that documentation.

    Perhaps not.


>As an aside, I find it interesting to note that their "persons" database
>does not include one Joel Rosenberg, a noted loud-mouth and well-documented
>spewer of obscenities and other nonsensical writings. I am quite certain he
>belongs to this organization, even if not "officially".

    Now, how would he belong to the organization "unofficially?"


>(Now watch the Nizkorites ask me for proof!)

    I will merely point out that you are clearly attempting to make a
guilt-by-association attack on Nizkor without even having proof of the
association.

    Is it OK for me to say that I am quite certain that you belong to the
Mafia, even if not "officially?"  Even without any proof?


>In any case, can someone at Nizkor explain
>this apparent oversight?

    Ken McVay will have to do that, since he set up the names.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Sun Jan 12 18:11:20 PST 1997
Article: 92476 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Opinion of what really happened (Was: Why is "Holocaust Denial" a bad thing?)
Date: 11 Jan 1997 21:01:30 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 134
Sender: mstein@access.digex.net
Message-ID: <5b9glq$a9c@access5.digex.net>
References:  <01bbfdc9$d0f1c520$4f7213cc@server> <5b5udp$ska@access5.digex.net> <01bbffd8$2a458ac0$4c7213cc@server>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <01bbffd8$2a458ac0$4c7213cc@server>,
Anthony Sabatini  wrote:
>Michael P. Stein  wrote in article
><5b5udp$ska@access5.digex.net>...
>
>[snip]

*** Note: the most critical text represented by "snip" is:

>> How? Make a case for it. Personal opinions are fine that they are
>> meaningless if you wish to revise history.
>
>But that is what this theory is: a personal opinion; didn't you understand
>that? Didn't you read the subject line? Do the words "I believe..." in any
>way sound like, "I assert as fact that..."?



>> "You can suggest anything you like. And you can state any opinion you
>> like.  The only problem is this stupid thing called 'reality' that keeps
>> getting in your way. " - A. Sabatini
>
>"Do you have the slightest clue how utterly idiotic and intellectually
>dishonest your arguments are here?  You don't?  How predictable!" - Mike
>Stein (See
>http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=1256157&server=dnserver.db96q5s&CON
>TEXT=852930703.1021&hitnum=149 for the full post)

    Unfortunately that URL only works for about two hours after the query. 
It used to be possible to give a permanent URL for DejaNews, but they
changed their software somewhere along the way.  They told me in response
to a query back a few months ago that they were working to provide a
search by article ID, but until that happens, you'll have to search for
the above article by filtering on alt.revisionism, then searching for the
three keywords "intellectually," "dishonest," and "predictable."  It will
bring up an article of mine from 2nd December 1996.

    To save people the time, I'm including the article that comes up in
response to that query.  (I do however encourage everyone to subject
anyone here, including myself, to a random audit of truthfulness and
accuracy - I make mistakes, even boneheaded ones, on occasion.) 



Subject:      Re: The Fuhrer's Gaze (Thank You, ourhero!)
From:         mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Date:         1996/12/02
Message-Id:   <57v80g$rpm@access5.digex.net>
References:    <57ntp0$8q0@juliana.sprynet.com>
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Newsgroups:   alt.revisionism



In article <57ntp0$8q0@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) writes:

[Letter from Rascher regarding the construction of a gas chamber at
Dachau]
>>    gases. Because of this paragraph, I have sent this letter
>>    marked  'Secret'".
>>

>And this letter was so secret that "Doctor" Keren can refer to
>it today.

    Captured secret documents become unsecret later, as do secrets which
become unclassified.  You have referred to the Ultra secret yourself.
Does this mean it wasn't a secret at one time, or that it was a hoax?


>Of course you have Himmler's reply to this alleged
>corresponce......You don't?  How predictable!

    Do you have the slightest clue how utterly idiotic and intellectually
dishonest your arguments are here?  You don't?  How predictable!

    Posted/emailed.
--



>>     Intellectual consistency is a bitch, ain't it?
>
>Isn't it, though?

    Now all the critical context has been restored, and everyone can see
the argument I call idiotic and intellectually dishonest (and I stand by
that statement).  So perhaps you could explain to everyone how I have been
in any way inconsistent - or how my use of your words, in the specific
context I used them, was in any way idiotic or intellectually dishonest. 
Construct a logical argument to support your position.  I suspect the
exercise might be highly beneficial.

    Since you've been harping about context, I suspect you pulled this
stunt simply to show how it's possible to distort by taking things out of
context.  Thanks, I think I know a bit about that - it's a stock in
trade for many of the Holocaust "revisionists."

    I'll give you a hot tip about context: you really need to provide
enough of it for your own articles via included text.  Even without any
attempt to distort, sometimes the article to which you are responding does
not show up on servers, and you will leave people scratching their heads
trying to figure out what you're replying to.  In fact, if this were not a
problem, Nizkor could get out of the archiving business altogether and
leave it to the far superior resources of DejaNews.  Alas, even DN misses
some articles, and they also need to solve that permanent-URL problem.

    Therefore I try to make every one of my articles capable of standing
on its own - while the reader might not know everything that has gone
before, at least _my_ meaning will be understandable.  Also - and this is
very important - I try to give indicators of where I cut out text that I'm
not replying to, so at least the reader will have fair warning that there
is more to read.  I admit that I do sometimes forget - I'm only human.  If
I goof with you (or anyone else, for that matter), and you can make a
reasonable case that I have distorted the meaning through inept editing,
by all means let me know - I am not afraid to issue public apologies for
my mistakes. 

    As for context on Nizkor - you can of course (usually) go to DejaNews
to find it.  But if I get some time (this will not be in the immediate
future, alas) I might come up with something fairly simple that will at
least allow traversal back up the thread to prior articles, which is all
you need to be concerned about as far as refuting distortion goes.

    But if you ever do find someone at Nizkor distorting your words by
deliberately and deceptively taking them out of context, let me know.  I
assure you, _you_ will not be half as angry as _I_ will be.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Mon Jan 13 07:14:04 PST 1997
Article: 92581 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay
Date: 12 Jan 1997 17:46:38 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <5bbpke$hvc@access4.digex.net>
References: <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com> <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server> 
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Mark Van Alstine  wrote:
>In article <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Ha! Forget it, Ourobouros. These guys at Nizkor believe that have a moral,
>> ethical and legal right to archive information in such a manner that can
>> easily lead messages to be misconstrued and twisted as to their original
>> intent....

    Mr. Sabatini, consider this: my own messages are archived on Nizkor in
exactly the same manner.  So are Ken McVay's, Jamie McCarthy's, and Danny
Keren's.  While it may not be the best thing around, at least everyone is
treated consistently.  Does this help any to allay your suspicions that
this method is used with a conscious intent to cause distortion?


>Translation: Mr. Sabatini is whining because his and others' vile
>Holocaust denial, Nazi apologia, anti-Seitism etc is archived and easily
>available to the general (Net) public. Mr. Sabatini, and moral miscreants
>like him, seems particularly peeved that his fabrications, distortions,
>and insults, etc can be ferreted out and brought back to haunt him by
>using the truth in the analysis and detailed refutation of his propaganda.

    Yes, Mr. Sabatini has posted at least one distortion (via quoting out
of context), peculiar logic, and a fair number of expressions of some
specific types of argument, paranoid suspicion and unsubstantiated charges
which I recognize you quite commonly find among Holocaust deniers, Nazi
apologists, and antisemites.  While this might cause you to conclude that
he's one too under the walks-like-a-duck theory - and it is quite possible
you are correct - nevertheless I have yet to see any post of his which
meets my personal definitions of overt Holocaust denial, Nazi apologia, or
antisemitism. 

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Mon Jan 13 08:06:21 PST 1997
Article: 92635 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 13 Jan 1997 01:41:14 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <5bclea$jj7@access2.digex.net>
References: <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com> <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server> <5ba1n0$hae@access5.digex.net> <32d97efd.87751145@news.gte.net>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article <32d97efd.87751145@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgiwer@gte.net) under the name
Brian Oblivion  wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1997 01:52:16 -0500, mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P.
>Stein) wrote in alt.revisionism:
>
>>In article <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server>,
>>Anthony Sabatini  wrote:
>>>I again challenge the Nizkorites to explain an easy method whereby someone
>>>browsing their archives can reconstruct a thread so that someone's comments
>>>have the benefit of their proper context with respect to previous messages
>>>and responses.
>>
>>    http://www.dejanews.com
>
>	The sequence in which servers receive posts is different.  But
>you know that.  

    I do.  I also know that is irrelevant.  Threading is done by the
References: line which shows the exact order in which posts commented on
each other, regardless of the order in which they arrive on servers.  But
you are ignorant and do not know that.  Why do you babble on about matters
you do not understand?



>>>AFAIK, the purpose of this archive is the equivalent of having a sword over
>>>your head. It exists as an implied threat so they can use your own words
>>>against you (twisted and deformed, of course!).
>>
>>    Really?  Perhaps you can produce just one example of how the archives
>>have ever been used in a way that distorts the true meaning of the
>>original words.
>
>	It has been done.  

    By you?  It would not surprise me.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lies/lie-openly-admitted.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/index-lies.html

    But in context, it should be clear I was speaking of the same people
Mr. Sabatini was accusing, which does not include you.  And since you are
a proven liar, I'm afraid any proof-free assertion that you have
demonstrated such behavior from Nizkor cannot be taken as credible. 


>and then, when there was no other way
>out, they themselves simply played stupid.  

    A good description of what you are doing.  Nevertheless, any liar can
assert that a post was previously made, even though nobody can find it.
You have done so before, not to mention denying posting words DejaNews
shows you as posting.

    And do you think the gentleman is incapable of speaking for himself? 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Mon Jan 13 16:27:09 PST 1997
Article: 92700 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay
Date: 13 Jan 1997 01:25:47 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <5bckhb$ds5@access2.digex.net>
References: <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com> <5ba1n0$hae@access5.digex.net> <01bc00aa$659ba230$547213cc@server>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

On 12 Jan 97 17:02:28 GMT, "Anthony Sabatini"
 wrote in alt.revisionism:

>Michael P. Stein  wrote in article
><5ba1n0$hae@access5.digex.net>...
>> In article <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server>,
>> Anthony Sabatini  wrote:

>> >AFAIK, the purpose of this archive is the equivalent of having a sword
>over
>> >your head. It exists as an implied threat so they can use your own words
>> >against you (twisted and deformed, of course!).
>> 
>>     Really?  Perhaps you can produce just one example of how the archives
>> have ever been used in a way that distorts the true meaning of the
>> original words.
>
>Well, yes. A quick look through DejaNews shows Nizkorites taking people's
>words and using them in replies to that person. This occurs many times, and
>I challenge Nizkor to prove otherwise.  You see, Nizkor quotes from one
>thread to answer in another.

    Certainly.  I have never denied this.  What I deny is the "twisted and
deformed" accusation you made and even quoted above.

>As such, the original meaning of the quote, if not always "distorted", is
>certainly out of context.

    I remind you that in text you yourself included above, you said,
"twisted and deformed."  You are now trying to change the subject.

    "Out of context" does not necessarily twist or deform statements,
although the usual accusation "you took my words out of context" implies
a closing "in a way that distorts their meaning."
 
    Some statements are so absolute in their original context that they
retain their meaning unchanged in just about any context you can name. 
E.g., an unqualified and absolute "I would never accuse someone of lying
unless I had proof" in one context keeps the same meaning in all contexts. 
So if you were to make the above statement, then in another place announce
(without any proof) that so-and-so is a liar, the "I would never accuse"
statement could fairly be used to show that you were inconsistent.


>These are old
>public-speaking tricks used by politicians, professional liars and other
>ne'er-do-wells.

    No - only the _distorted_ taking out of context is such a trick.

    But so is the evasive changing of the subject you are pulling here. 
You made an accusation of wrongdoing.  You were asked to back it up.  You
are now trying to change the subject from "twist[ing] and deform[ing]" to
simple taking out of context (which is _not_ necessarily twisting and
deforming).  Please stick to the original subject. 

    Now.  Please provide documentation of such "twisted and deformed" use
of quotations, or retract.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Mon Jan 13 18:21:23 PST 1997
Article: 92727 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dciteleport.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay
Date: 13 Jan 1997 15:10:17 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <5be4r9$kr6@access5.digex.net>
References: <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com> <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server> <5b9kkm$s9c@lex.zippo.com> 
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article ,
Mark Van Alstine  wrote:
>In article <5b9kkm$s9c@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Apparently Mr. K. McVay respects the law, so theoretically he should heed 
>> my request.
>
>Mr. self-eater, your "request" has little to do with law and much to do
>with attempting to save face by getting rid of all the embarrassing
>claptrap you've  posted. Unfortunately for you, your bullying tactics of
>using copryrights as a stalking horse to intimidate people is quite
>farsical. 
>
>Copyrights have limitations. One limitation, for example, is in reagard to
>"fair use" and another is in regard to the reproduction of copyrighted
>works by educators and librarians. 

    Mark, you missed the key limitation here: copyright does not cover the
case where someone possesses a copy which was voluntarily published and
freely handed to the possessor (as well as to every other Internet user on
the planet) by the person asserting copyright.  If I print books and hand
copies to everyone in sight, including you, you have a legal right to
place that book on any bookshelf you like and allow anyone you like to
look at your copy of my book.


>Get a clue, Mr. self-eater, and save yourself further ridicule.  

    Actually, the person holding the bizarre notion of copyright is Matt
Giwer.  (It is of a piece with his other bizarre notions about the law, at
least.)  Ourobouros is relying on a provision of New Zealand law which
makes it illegal to publicize any information about someone.
Unfortunately, as I have said elsewhere, Ouroborous was the person
responsible for publicizing his own writings by posting them to Usenet.
If he wishes to file a criminal complaint against himself, of course that
is his right.  Given his nickname, it would be a strangely appropriate
thing to do, I suppose.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Mon Jan 13 23:20:33 PST 1997
Article: 92767 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.german
Subject: Swiger's lack of substance
Supersedes: <5bem14$8cl@access5.digex.net>
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 13 Jan 1997 20:04:45 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <5bem3d$8er@access5.digex.net>
References: <32D4237D.3FE7@rio.com>  <32d982db.88723812@news.gte.net> <32d9ceac.32662417@news.dmsc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:92767 soc.culture.german:94158

    Followups set to alt.revisionism.

In article <32d9ceac.32662417@news.dmsc.net>,
Cliff Swiger  wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:37:05 GMT, BOb@the.helm (Brian Oblivion) wrote:
[>>Mark Van Alstine wrote:]
>
[snip]

>>>Incorrect. As can been seen below, according to the Danuta Czech, it took
>>>40 minutes to incinerate 45 corpses in the 15 muffles of Krema II. That's
>>>an average of litle over a corspe per minute per muffle.

    Um, no.  I read this as 45 corpses per 15 muffles = 3 corpses per
muffle.  Over 40 minutes that's a corpse per 13.33 minutes, not one per
minute.  Turn in your secret ZOG decoder ring, Mr. Van Alstine.


>>>And this was
>>>thought to be "an unexpectedly long time" by the SS and engineers present.

>I'm unfamiliar with this "Danuta Czech" but this claim you print here
>is the most outlandish I've ever heard. Where can I get a copy of this
>allegation?  It will provide me with good ammunition in future debates.
>Nonetheless, it takes modern crematories 1 to 3 hours to incinerate a
>corpse and the bones (cremation remains) must still be pulverized.

    Yes, but of course pulverization can be done outside the retort. 

    As Mr. Van Alstine explained in text that Matt Giwer deleted, it is
not really accurate to say that the cremation took only 13.33 minutes. 
Rather, at that point the remains could be moved to the ash channel for a
further 20 minutes of burning while a fresh corpse (or corpses) were
loaded into the muffle.  So the cremation of one corpse might take about
35 minutes (according to the reference) yet permit the muffle to be
charged with a fresh load approximately every fifteen.

    One thing to keep in mind is that the figure of one to three hours for
a corpse, depending on oven model, is for an average adult.  In purely
physical terms, the correct expression of the rate of burn is weight per
time period, not corpses per time period. If a 70kg adult corpse takes one
hour in a particular model of oven, so would two 35-kg preteens or four
17-kg toddlers or 10-12 babes in arms - and you can stuff them all into
the oven at once if you do not care about mixing up the ashes. And the
corpse mix is unfortunately unspecified. 

    Another thing to keep in mind is that in a normal cremation, some of
the time is devoted to cosmetic purposes rather than any significant
volume reduction.  For documentation, see:

http://search.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/crematoria/cremation.008

and look at the excerpts I took from an article in the _Washington City
Paper_.


>Well, these "SS and engineers" telling a whopper of a fib. The
>crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau operated at hundreds of degrees less
>than state-of-the-art models

    Could you please give a source for this?  The only time I have seen
any attempt to document this claim, it turned out that the person was
foolishly comparing a Celsius figure for the A-B oven with a Fahrenheit
figure for a modern oven.  Once the conversion was done to the same scale,
they turned out to be quite similar.  Surely someone with your claimed
technical competence would not make such a stupid error, so I would be
very interested in seeing your documentation on this point. 


>and they did not employ a direct flame to the corpse.

    Modern crematoria generally use the flame port only for the first
cremation of the day, before the oven is up to full operating temperature. 
So this is not relevant except for that first body. 


>>	UFO abductions are also proven by testimony.  
>
>Oh my. What this?

    Sarcasm.  But it's actually something of a relief to see that you can
have as much trouble understanding an ally as you do correctly
understanding what I wrote.  Speaking of which, have you managed to find
any quotes which support your claims about what I allegedly said in my
paper about the diesel issue?  If you haven't, could you please have the
integrity and good grace to admit that you were in error?

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Tue Jan 14 12:54:50 PST 1997
Article: 92873 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.InterGate.BC.CA!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!udel-eecis!netnews.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Why is "Holocaust Denial" a bad thing?
Date: 14 Jan 1997 06:43:17 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <5bfrgl$f3a@access4.digex.net>
References:  <19970101232800.SAA25052@ladder01.news.aol.com> <32d35fe9.7438281@news.inetport.com> <01bbfa97$da7c5e50$2b7213cc@server>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <01bbfa97$da7c5e50$2b7213cc@server>,
Anthony Sabatini (anthonys@infobahnos.com) wrote:
>[...] I always assumed "Holocaust denial" was really about "gross
>exaggeration" of these events. If someone were to say 12 million died, and
>a "denier" refuses and claims 500,000 were killed instead, I found it odd
>that the latter should be branded anti-Semitic. But from your answer, I
>think you are stating that "deniers" only question whether or not 6 million
>Jews were slaughtered. If this is indeed the case, I would be interested in
>hearing opposing views.

    Oh, dear.  I see we got off the track and nobody actually ever
answered the question.  What you wrote above is not Holocaust denial by
itself - were it so, then Raul Hilberg would be a denier since he put the
total at 5.1 million.  So would Reitlinger, who put it at 4.2 million. 
(The six million figure always was a rounded-up number from something like
5.7 million.) 

    Classic holocaust denial includes most if not all of the following
points in addition to the extreme reduction in death toll: 

    - Most Jewish deaths were the result of disease and starvation.

    - And almost all of that was the fault of the Allies for disrupting
      food and medical supplies at the end of the war.

    - There was no gassing, anywhere, by any means[1].  Any witness who
      says so was a) lying  b) tortured  c) hallucinating  d) intimidated
      into making a false confession by fear of retribution.  Any document
      which refers to gas chambers was a) forged by the Soviets b) 
      misinterpreted.

    - Some Jews were shot, but a good many of those who did deserved it
      for being Communist partisans, and any Jewish women and children
      who were shot were only the victims of a) overeagerness on the
      part of the Nazis to destroy Bolshevism, as Jews were identified
      as Bolsheviks, or b) absolutely legal reprisals for illegal partisan
      warfare, or c) actually deported to Siberia by the Soviets
      themselves.  (Why the Soviets would deport loyal Jewish communists
      to Siberia is something nobody has ever explained to me.)

    - There was absolutely no plan by the Nazi regime to exterminate
      the Jewish people, ever.  The plan was deportation.  The last idea
      was to conquer Russia and deport all the European Jews into areas of
      Russia that the Germans did not want.  Any document that indicates
      otherwise was a) forged  b) misinterpreted.

    - Any Jews that are missing actually  a) went to Israel (never mind
      that there are no records to support that number) b) went to the
      United States (ditto)  c) went into Russia (possibly followed by
      the Siberian deportation mentioned above) d) changed their names so
      as not to be identified as Jews.

    - In its end-stage form, Faurisson's syndrome, even the diary of
      Anne Frank (subjected to extensive forensic testing by the
      Netherlands State Forensic Institute and declared genuine) is
      a forgery.  (Faurisson's "evidence" is that there is some writing
      in ballpoint pen, something not invented in the '40s.  It turns
      out that the ballpoint marks were in just a few places, in a
      different handwriting, and were editing notations added during
      the process of preparing the diary for publication in the '50s.
      The text of the diary itself is in authentic pen and ink for
      the period - but of course Faurisson did not see fit to mention
      just how limited the ballpoint markings were.)

[1] Recently David Cole - who is, ironically, himself Jewish - declared
that he is satisfied that there was one gassing carried out in the
Natzweiler concentration camp for the purpose of creating a Jewish
skeleton collection for Dr. Hirt.  Faurisson in effect excommunicated him
for this heresy. 

    I hope this gives you a better idea of what people mean when talking
about Holocaust denial.

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Tue Jan 14 13:58:30 PST 1997
Article: 92884 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!nnrp.info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.german
Subject: Re: Swiger's lack of substance
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 13 Jan 1997 16:34:03 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <5be9ob$qe9@access5.digex.net>
References: <32D4237D.3FE7@rio.com>  <32d982db.88723812@news.gte.net> <32d9ceac.32662417@news.dmsc.net>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:92884 soc.culture.german:94236

    Followups set to alt.revisionism.

In article <32d9ceac.32662417@news.dmsc.net>,
Cliff Swiger  wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:37:05 GMT, BOb@the.helm (Brian Oblivion) wrote:
[>>Mark Van Alstine wrote:]
>
[snip]

>>>Incorrect. As can been seen below, according to the Danuta Czech, it took
>>>40 minutes to incinerate 45 corpses in the 15 muffles of Krema II. That's
>>>an average of litle over a corspe per minute per muffle.

    Um, no.  I read this as 45 corpses per 15 muffles = 3 corpses per
muffle.  Over 40 minutes that's a corpse per 13.33 minutes, not one per
minute.  Turn in your secret ZOG decoder ring, Mr. Van Alstine.


>>>And this was
>>>thought to be "an unexpectedly long time" by the SS and engineers present.

>I'm unfamiliar with this "Danuta Czech" but this claim you print here
>is the most outlandish I've ever heard. Where can I get a copy of this
>allegation?  It will provide me with good ammunition in future debates.
>Nonetheless, it takes modern crematories 1 to 3 hours to incinerate a
>corpse and the bones (cremation remains) must still be pulverized.

    Yes, but of course pulverization can be done outside the retort. 

    As Mr. Van Alstine explained in text that Matt Giwer deleted, it is
not really accurate to say that the cremation took only 13.33 minutes. 
Rather, at that point the remains could be moved to the ash channel for a
further 20 minutes of burning while a fresh corpse (or corpses) were
loaded into the muffle.  So the cremation of one corpse might take about
35 minutes (according to the reference) yet permit the muffle to be
charged with a fresh load approximately every fifteen.

    One thing to keep in mind is that the figure of one to three hours for
a corpse, depending on oven model, is for an average adult.  In purely
physical terms, the correct expression of the rate of burn is weight per
time period, not corpses per time period. If a 70kg adult corpse takes one
hour in a particular model of oven, so would two 35-kg preteens or four
17-kg toddlers or 10-12 babes in arms - and you can stuff them all into
the oven at once if you do not care about mixing up the as. And the corpse
mix is unfortunately unspecified.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that in a normal cremation, some of
the time is devoted to cosmetic purposes rather than any significant
volume reduction.  For documentation, see:

http://search.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/crematoria/cremation.008

and look at the excerpts I took from an article in the _Washington City
Paper_."


>Well, these "SS and engineers" telling a whopper of a fib. The
>crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau operated at hundreds of degrees less
>than state-of-the-art models

    Could you please give a source for this?  The only time I have seen
any attempt to document this claim, it turned out that the person was
foolishly comparing a Celsius figure for the A-B oven with a Fahrenheit
figure for a modern oven.  Once the conversion was done to the same scale,
they turned out to be quite similar.  Surely someone with your claimed
technical competence would not make such a stupid error, so I would be
very interested in seeing your documentation on this point. 


>>	UFO abductions are also proven by testimony.  
>
>Oh my. What this?

    Sarcasm.  But it's actually something of a relief to see that you can
have as much trouble understanding an ally as you do correctly
understanding what I wrote.  Speaking of which, have you managed to find
any quotes which support your claims about what I allegedly said in my
paper about the diesel issue?  If you haven't, could you please have the
integrity and good grace to admit that you were in error?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access5.digex.net Tue Jan 14 13:58:32 PST 1997
Article: 92885 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!nntp.portal.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.german
Subject: Swiger's lack of substance
Supersedes: <5beaj9$rio@access5.digex.net>
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 13 Jan 1997 17:31:28 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <5bed40$11u@access5.digex.net>
References: <32D4237D.3FE7@rio.com>  <32d982db.88723812@news.gte.net> <32d9ceac.32662417@news.dmsc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:92885 soc.culture.german:94238

    Followups set to alt.revisionism.

In article <32d9ceac.32662417@news.dmsc.net>,
Cliff Swiger  wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:37:05 GMT, BOb@the.helm (Brian Oblivion) wrote:
[>>Mark Van Alstine wrote:]
>
[snip]

>>>Incorrect. As can been seen below, according to the Danuta Czech, it took
>>>40 minutes to incinerate 45 corpses in the 15 muffles of Krema II. That's
>>>an average of litle over a corspe per minute per muffle.

    Um, no.  I read this as 45 corpses per 15 muffles = 3 corpses per
muffle.  Over 40 minutes that's a corpse per 13.33 minutes, not one per
minute.  Turn in your secret ZOG decoder ring, Mr. Van Alstine.


>>>And this was
>>>thought to be "an unexpectedly long time" by the SS and engineers present.

>I'm unfamiliar with this "Danuta Czech" but this claim you print here
>is the most outlandish I've ever heard. Where can I get a copy of this
>allegation?  It will provide me with good ammunition in future debates.
>Nonetheless, it takes modern crematories 1 to 3 hours to incinerate a
>corpse and the bones (cremation remains) must still be pulverized.

    Yes, but of course pulverization can be done outside the retort. 

    As Mr. Van Alstine explained in text that Matt Giwer deleted, it is
not really accurate to say that the cremation took only 13.33 minutes. 
Rather, at that point the remains could be moved to the ash channel for a
further 20 minutes of burning while a fresh corpse (or corpses) were
loaded into the muffle.  So the cremation of one corpse might take about
35 minutes (according to the reference) yet permit the muffle to be
charged with a fresh load approximately every fifteen.

    One thing to keep in mind is that the figure of one to three hours for
a corpse, depending on oven model, is for an average adult.  In purely
physical terms, the correct expression of the rate of burn is weight per
time period, not corpses per time period. If a 70kg adult corpse takes one
hour in a particular model of oven, so would two 35-kg preteens or four
17-kg toddlers or 10-12 babes in arms - and you can stuff them all into
the oven at once if you do not care about mixing up the as. And the corpse
mix is unfortunately unspecified.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that in a normal cremation, some of
the time is devoted to cosmetic purposes rather than any significant
volume reduction.  For documentation, see:

http://search.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/crematoria/cremation.008

and look at the excerpts I took from an article in the _Washington City
Paper_."


>Well, these "SS and engineers" telling a whopper of a fib. The
>crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau operated at hundreds of degrees less
>than state-of-the-art models

    Could you please give a source for this?  The only time I have seen
any attempt to document this claim, it turned out that the person was
foolishly comparing a Celsius figure for the A-B oven with a Fahrenheit
figure for a modern oven.  Once the conversion was done to the same scale,
they turned out to be quite similar.  Surely someone with your claimed
technical competence would not make such a stupid error, so I would be
very interested in seeing your documentation on this point. 


>and they did not employ a direct flame to the corpse.

    Modern crematoria generally use the flame port only for the first
cremation of the day, before the oven is up to full operating temperature. 
So this is not relevant except for that first body. 


>>	UFO abductions are also proven by testimony.  
>
>Oh my. What this?

    Sarcasm.  But it's actually something of a relief to see that you can
have as much trouble understanding an ally as you do correctly
understanding what I wrote.  Speaking of which, have you managed to find
any quotes which support your claims about what I allegedly said in my
paper about the diesel issue?  If you haven't, could you please have the
integrity and good grace to admit that you were in error?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Wed Jan 15 08:27:59 PST 1997
Article: 92962 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.logical.net!iag.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What is Semitism?
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 15 Jan 1997 01:39:08 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <5bhu2c$buf@access2.digex.net>
References: <32d87a33.20990083@news.gte.net>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article <32d87a33.20990083@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgiwer@gte.net) under the name
Brian Oblivion  wrote:
>	What is semitism?

    I don't know either, but if you find out what tism is, semitism will
be half of it.


>Not to challenge anyone here but it is not a
>religion.  Atheists get to call themselves Jews by primitive tribal
>rules of membership.  
>
>	There is absolutely ZERO religious intolerance, prejudice or
>anything even remotely related against Jews in the US and NOTHING they
>do in public has anything to do with religion.  
>
>	Search your memories and the Web in your spare time.  Find ONE
>religious action, statement, whatever regarding the jewish religion by
>any Jew.  
>
>	You will not find any.

    Wanna bet?

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access1.digex.net Wed Jan 15 08:28:00 PST 1997
Article: 92970 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!xenitec!zenox.com!news2.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!mindspring!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Blackmore's research
Date: 8 Jan 1997 00:34:33 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <5avbl9$f26@access1.digex.net>
References: <5aphve$p60@access5.digex.net> <5aqr06$nrp@juliana.sprynet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <5aqr06$nrp@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) writes:
>>       How is it then, Mr. Blackmore, that Mr. Curtis is able to provide
>>  large citations from references without (as you insinuate) research, while
>>  you always plead that you must get back to us with your evidence?  (And
>>  often either fail to do so or turn out to be inaccurate.)
>>  
>>>>>

>Well, the answers to your questions have been written many times before. 
>Perhaps you did not read them.  Mr. Curtis does indeed provide large
>citations.  TOO large, IMO.

    Better too large than too small.


>He often reposts excerpts I have already
>posted in support of my arguments, only then attempts to re-interpret the
>material in his own image.  Often it is not a simple matter for me to
>immediately access a source, as I have too many books.  I get to them as
>I can, when I can.  I also take exception to your comment that my
>evidence turns out to be inaccurate. 

    I made no such comment.  Try rereading what I wrote, maybe you can
figure it out.

    Posted/emailed.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Wed Jan 15 08:28:01 PST 1997
Article: 92979 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.corp.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!news.radio.cz!CESspool!hammer.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Matt Giwer deletes reference, then demands it again
Date: 15 Jan 1997 01:22:04 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 215
Sender: mstein@access.digex.net
Message-ID: <5bht2c$bg3@access2.digex.net>
References: <32D4237D.3FE7@rio.com> <32d9ceac.32662417@news.dmsc.net> <5beaj9$rio@access5.digex.net> <32dae12d.77915726@news.gte.net>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article <32dae12d.77915726@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgiwer@gte.net) under the name
Brian Oblivion  wrote:
>On 13 Jan 1997 16:48:25 -0500, mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P.
>Stein) wrote in alt.revisionism:
>
>>    Followups set to alt.revisionism.
>>
>>In article <32d9ceac.32662417@news.dmsc.net>,
>>Cliff Swiger  wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:37:05 GMT, BOb@the.helm (Brian Oblivion) wrote:
>>[>>Mark Van Alstine wrote:]
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>>Incorrect. As can been seen below, according to the Danuta Czech, it took
>>>>>40 minutes to incinerate 45 corpses in the 15 muffles of Krema II. That's
>>>>>an average of litle over a corspe per minute per muffle.
>>
>>    Um, no.  I read this as 45 corpses per 15 muffles = 3 corpses per
>>muffle.  Over 40 minutes that's a corpse per 13.33 minutes, not one per
>>minute.  Turn in your secret ZOG decoder ring, Mr. Van Alstine.
>
>	But we know that burn time is a function of the amount to be
>burned.  You are included in the we who have known that for years now.

    And where have I said differently?  I explicitly said the correct
measure is weight per hour.

>Three per oven takes as much time as one per oven.  You have known
>that for years also.  Why do you keep coming back to this crap that
>you know is false?

    What have I said that is false?  I corrected his math.  I continued
with the explanation below.  You are raising your objections before giving
me a chance to finish.


[snip]  

>>    As Mr. Van Alstine explained in text that Matt Giwer deleted, 
>
>	Hand waving without numbers is delitia.

    But there were numbers in the deletia: 20 minutes additional burn,
>from  the operating instructions.

>Why is it you folks can not handle numbers?

    You are the one here who seems to have the most trouble handling
numbers.  Two cases of being off by a factor of ten in multiplying, and
claiming that 10% per month is the same as 120% per year.  And of course
there is that probability problem you ran screaming in terror from.


>it is
>>not really accurate to say that the cremation took only 13.33 minutes. 
>>Rather, at that point the remains could be moved to the ash channel for a
>>further 20 minutes of burning while a fresh corpse (or corpses) were
>>loaded into the muffle.  So the cremation of one corpse might take about
>>35 minutes (according to the reference) yet permit the muffle to be
>>charged with a fresh load approximately every fifteen.
>
>	So post the calculations.  Of course you can not because they
>do not support your beloved eyewitnesses.  

    There are no calculations.  Never were.  Each model of oven is
different; the first cremation is moreover different from the subsequent
ones.  The actual values must be determined experimentally. 


>>    One thing to keep in mind is that the figure of one to three hours for
>>a corpse, depending on oven model, is for an average adult.  In purely
>>physical terms, the correct expression of the rate of burn is weight per
>>time period, not corpses per time period. If a 70kg adult corpse takes one
>>hour in a particular model of oven, so would two 35-kg preteens or four
>>17-kg toddlers or 10-12 babes in arms - and you can stuff them all into
>>the oven at once if you do not care about mixing up the as. And the corpse
>>mix is unfortunately unspecified.
>
>	Show the numbers that result in the ridiculously low times.

    Do you call one hour for an average adult corpse in flat-out operation
ridiculously low?  If so, please drop a dime to B&L Cremation Systems of
Clearwater, FL.  It might even be a local call for you.  Ask for Mr.
Steve Looker.  He builds cremation ovens.  He will correct your ignorance.

    Do you claim it takes just as long to cremate a 12-lb infant as a
120-lb adult?  Drop the dime, learn something.



>>    Another thing to keep in mind is that in a normal cremation, some of
>>the time is devoted to cosmetic purposes rather than any significant
>>volume reduction.  For documentation, see:
>
>	Show the calculations that result in the 6 or 12 minute per
>body time frame.  You can not and we know that.  You are not even
>willing to take a shot at it.

    It depends.  I know of no oven that will completely burn an average
adult in six minutes.  Yet six minutes for a babe in arms is quite
feasible.  But if you would learn to read, you will see that it turns out
that the 12 minutes was a reloading rate; the total burn did take longer -
about 35 minutes, according to Mr. Van Alstine's source.  While that is
faster than a normal modern crematorium, there is also the problem that
the size of corpse used in the test was unspecified.  You must also keep
in mind that the Topf models were intended for far higher-capacity use
than a normal commercial operation - find me one, just one crematorium
that uses a multiple-muffle oven.

    In order to know if this is feasible, you must actually run an
experiment with the actual oven in question.  If you were a real scientist
instead of a lying fraud you would know this. 


>>>Well, these "SS and engineers" telling a whopper of a fib. The
>>>crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau operated at hundreds of degrees less
>>>than state-of-the-art models
>>
>>    Could you please give a source for this?  The only time I have seen
>>any attempt to document this claim, it turned out that the person was
>>foolishly comparing a Celsius figure for the A-B oven with a Fahrenheit
>>figure for a modern oven.  Once the conversion was done to the same scale,
>>they turned out to be quite similar.  Surely someone with your claimed
>>technical competence would not make such a stupid error, so I would be
>>very interested in seeing your documentation on this point. 
>
>	All of it has been posted many times.  Stop playing jew stupid.

    Sorry, I really have not seen a valid source, only assertion.  Of
course any liar could claim it has been posted.  But you know that.  And
you are a proven and self-confessed liar.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lies/lie-openly-admitted.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/index-lies.html

    Post the source or give it up.

    Besides, do you not think Mr. Swiger is capable of speaking for
himself?


>>>and they did not employ a direct flame to the corpse.
>>
>>    Modern crematoria generally use the flame port only for the first
>>cremation of the day, before the oven is up to full operating temperature. 
>>So this is not relevant except for that first body. 
>
>	Source please.  Else stop making it up.  

    The source was given in the article you responded to.  You deleted it
>from  your reply.  It followed the text:

>>    Another thing to keep in mind is that in a normal cremation, some of
>>the time is devoted to cosmetic purposes rather than any significant
>>volume reduction.  For documentation, see:
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Except of course that you deleted it.


But since you probably are also too stupid to figure out how to go look
for the article again, just for you I'll give it again.

    http://search.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/z/zundel.ernst/cremation.008

And since you are probably too stupid to find the exact location in all
that text, let me help you further: 



     The retort's primary chamber, currently occupied by Mr. James' body, is
96 inches long, 38 inches wide, and 29 inches high.  That is more than ample
to accommodate a very large person and casket.  The chamber's walls and
ceiling are lined with heat-reflecting ceramic tiles.  The floor, or hearth,
is constructed from alumina silica that can withstand temperatures up to
3,500 degrees Fahrenheit.  Embedded in the ceiling, right above where the
average corpse's chest comes to rest, is a giant blowtorch nozzle.  It is
known in the trade as the "flame port."

     As he once again checks the gauges on the retort, Rapp observes that
this third cremation of the day is far different from the first.  Human
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
flesh requires extended exposure to 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit in order to
ignite.  For the first cremation of the day, when the retort is just
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
warming up, Rapp needs to use the flame port.  It blasts the body with a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2,800 -degree gush of fire.

     But by the time Mr. James' body enters the retort, the air in the
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
primary chamber is roiling well above 1,400 degrees.  Shortly after the door
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
comes down, his body is aflame.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



     Source: "Keeper of the Flame," _Washington City Paper_, Vol. 16 No. 11,
March 15-21 1996, pp. 20-24.

    I even underlined the relevant text for you, since you have proven to
be so illiterate.  Think you can handle that now?

    Of course this has been posted more than once.  You are just playing
stupid.  But notice that I still keep posting the source rather than
waving my hands and just asserting it has been posted.  That is because
I really do have a source to post.  All you can do is assert.  But you
know why that is.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Wed Jan 15 08:28:02 PST 1997
Article: 92987 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!metro.atlanta.com!cpk-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bad German Genes
Date: 15 Jan 1997 01:58:22 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 18
Sender: mstein@access.digex.net
Message-ID: <5bhv6e$c9o@access2.digex.net>
References: <32D1A353.6A6B@ibm.net> <5b8qj7$9og@juliana.sprynet.com>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net

In article <5b8qj7$9og@juliana.sprynet.com>,   wrote:
>>   Gord McFee  writes:
>>  ChuckF2323 wrote:
>>  > I'll buy the beers all around if blackmore proves this crock
>>  > [about Goldhagen claiming the Germans had a "bad gene"].
>>  
>>  Those beers are as safe as they could be Chuck.
>>  
>>>>>
>Comment:  Start stocking up on coronas.

    Rather than wasting time giving advice on cigars, get busy rounding up
that there evidence.

-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Wed Jan 15 17:33:08 PST 1997
Article: 93057 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 15 Jan 1997 14:34:00 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 29
Sender: mstein@access.digex.net
Message-ID: <5bjbf8$mv@access5.digex.net>
References: <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com> <01bc00aa$659ba230$547213cc@server> <5bckhb$ds5@access2.digex.net> <32da833e.54520367@news.gte.net>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:93057 alt.usenet.kooks:32514

In article <32da833e.54520367@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgiwer@gte.net) under the name
Brian Oblivion  wrote:
>On 13 Jan 1997 01:25:47 -0500, mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P.
>Stein) wrote in alt.revisionism:
>
>>    "Out of context" does not necessarily twist or deform statements,
>>although the usual accusation "you took my words out of context" implies
>>a closing "in a way that distorts their meaning."  
>
>	Little Danny Keren said he lives in an asylum.  They are his
>words right form his post.  They are also out of context.  

    In a way that distorts their meaning.  He was quoting.  Therefore the
"I" who lived in an asylum, taken in context, was not Danny Keren.  You
distorted the meaning of the "I" by taking them out of context.  That is
exactly consistent with what I said about the implication carried by the
normal use of the term "out of context." So it is not clear what point you
think you are making here.


>	Your sophistry is not of interest.  

    When I use some, I'll let you know.  Why do you think your sophistry
is of interest?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Wed Jan 15 17:33:09 PST 1997
Article: 93063 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!metro.atlanta.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!swrinde!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay
Date: 15 Jan 1997 15:46:29 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 192
Sender: mstein@access.digex.net
Message-ID: <5bjfn5$30a@access5.digex.net>
References: <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com> <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server>  <5bbpke$hvc@access4.digex.net> <01bc00f3$0b9d91a0$217213cc@server>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

Subject:      Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay


In article <01bc00f3$0b9d91a0$217213cc@server>,
Anthony Sabatini (anthonys@infobahnos.com) wrote:
>Michael P. Stein  wrote in article
><5bbpke$hvc@access4.digex.net>...
>> In article ,
>> Mark Van Alstine  wrote:
>> >In article <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server>, "Anthony Sabatini"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> Ha! Forget it, Ourobouros. These guys at Nizkor believe that have a
>moral,
>> >> ethical and legal right to archive information in such a manner that
>can
>> >> easily lead messages to be misconstrued and twisted as to their
>original
>> >> intent....
>>
>>     Mr. Sabatini, consider this: my own messages are archived on Nizkor
>> in exactly the same manner [i.e., unthreaded].  So are Ken McVay's, Jamie 
>> McCarthy's, and Danny Keren's.
>
>Yet their are many who are not, most of whom side with your opinions. How
>strange...

    Actually, if you think about it, you could take that as a rather nasty
comment about the missing people: that Ken doesn't think they have very
much to say that's interesting.  But the missing people actually aren't 
missing; it's just that they don't have an archive under the "people" 
tree.  If you use the search engine and look at the alt.revisionism 
archives, their articles are there.

    Truth to tell, when time permits (i.e., about 20 years from now :))
with Ken's permission I'd like to revamp the way personal archiving is
done simply to reduce the download delay.  At that time it might be
possible to increase the number of people found under the people tree 
since the space requirements would be greatly reduced.


>> While it may not be the best thing around, at least everyone is
>> treated consistently.  Does this help any to allay your suspicions that
>> this method is used with a conscious intent to cause distortion?
>
>Sorry, it does not.

    I would like to point out that your normal newsreader also permits
articles to be taken out of context in another way, since your site does
not necessarily store a thread all the way back to the beginning - if the
article is over two weeks old (or whatever your service provider sets as
the retention period) it is deleted.  And context for an exchange can go
beyond a single thread.  The reactions to Matt Giwer are in a context
caused by his entire posting history going back to January of 1996, and
(for Alec Grynspan and "Rack Jite") extending back to his days on Fidonet. 

    Your newsreader doesn't show you any of that context.  Why aren't you
concerned about that? 


>[The dishonest Mark Van Alstine's unfounded accusations deleted]
>
>>
>>     Yes, Mr. Sabatini has posted at least one distortion (via quoting out
>> of context),
>
>It was not out of context. You used a quote from another thread to answer a
>post. I found a cool quote from you and used it to reply to you.

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "out of context" 
really means, as well as the conditions under which you can get away with
using "cool quotes" as you put it. 

    "Out of context" always carries the implication "in a way that
deceptively alters the meaning the words had when read in their correct
context."  When I say, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," I
don't have to quote all of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" (or even the
entire balcony scene) to avoid the accusation of "quoting out of context." 
That's because the quote detached from its context in the play still means
exactly what it means in the play: the nature of a thing is more important
than the name, and does not change just because the name changes. 

    The "cool quote" I took from you was not out of context, because the
point it made applied in all contexts - that opinion and reality are two
different things.  Mike Curtis had said very close to the same thing in
different words, and you tried to defend yourself by saying hey, it was
just an opinion.  Yet when Ken McVay gave you _his_ opinion, you took the
same position that Mike Curtis took with you. 

    Therefore you were inconsistent in pleading with Mike Curtis that you
need not be consistent with reality in your opinions, yet insinuating that
Ken McVay needs to respect reality when _he_ delivers an opinion.  (You
also failed to make a case that Ken's opinion was out of line with reality
- you just said it was true Because! You! Say! So!) That's special
pleading for special protection from criticism and comment for your own
opinions which you're not willing to give to others, a form of
intellectual inconsistency and dishonesty. 

    You thought you were doing the same thing with the "cool quote" you
took from me.  Unfortunately, you neglected to establish that the "cool
quote" was truly applicable to the situation you were commenting on.  If
it isn't - and I think it is not - _you_ are the one who looks stupid, not
me. 

    I challenged you to make a case for applicability.  You never
answered that I have so far seen.


>> peculiar logic,
>
>This is my prerogative, and not yours to judge.

    Here is a syllogism: "All antisemites dislike Jewish people.  You 
dislike Joel Rosenberg, who is Jewish.  Therefore you are an antisemite."

    Now, just what were you saying with your statement above?  Are you
seriously saying that as the author of the above syllogism, I am the only
person entitled to judge whether the "logic" I used to "prove" you an
antisemite is faulty?  Or are you saying that you are the only person
qualified to judge logic?  Or are you saying I am not entitled to form an
opinion about your logic?  Or is it that I must not state my opinion about
your logic?  What? 


>> and a fair number of expressions of some
>> specific types of argument,
>
>What, exactly, does this mean?

    It means you echo some of the same things said by deniers in an
attempt to attack Nizkor - the out-of-context ploy, for example (a term
you evidently don't fully understand).  It means that you assert a lot but
don't back up your assertions. 


>> paranoid suspicion and unsubstantiated charges
>
>Of which you and your merry band are entirely innocent of...not!

    In the "peculiar logic" department, the above is a combination of the
logical fallacy _ad hominem tu quoque_ (colloquially, "you're one, too")
coupled with "guilt by association."  As you saw below, I agreed that Mark
Van Alstine made an unsubstantiated charge.

    I have by mistake occasionally made not merely unsubstantiated but
provably false charges as well - and publicly apologized as soon as the
mistakes were brought to my attention.  That's all I'm humanly capable of
doing.  If you have one to bring to my attention, please do so - if I made
a mistake, I'll apologize for it.  If you think you have an example of
paranoid suspicion on my part, please bring it out.

    Nevertheless, even if you can find such an example, all it does at
worst is show that I'm somewhat hypocritical.  It doesn't magically make
what I said untrue. 

[snip]

>At least Mr. Stein is honest in that he makes no false accusations.  The
>same cannot be said for Mr. Van Alstine, who, if he does not publicly
>apologize for his unfounded accusations, will soon be branded a proven
>liar.

    Well, as long as we're on that subject, could we also put on the 
table your _earlier_ accusation:

"AFAIK, the purpose of this archive is the equivalent of having a sword
over your head. It exists as an implied threat so they can use your own
words against you (twisted and deformed, of course!)." 

    I won't deny that the archives not only are but have been used as a
sort of sword over people's heads: any attempt to deny your own prior
misdeeds will be met with solid proof that you are lying.  Do you think 
there is something wrong with using an archive in that manner, to prove 
that someone is lying?  I don't.  So I will neither deny nor apologize 
for that part of what you accuse Nizkor of doing.

    But I would agree that it is wrong to use the archives in a way that
twists and deforms the meaning.  Since you have made such an accusation,
under the exact same standard by which you challenge Mark Van Alstine,
will you now

    a) provide foundation for your accusation
    b) apologize for your unfounded accusation
    c) be branded a proven liar

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


From mstein@access.digex.net Wed Jan 15 18:29:15 PST 1997
Article: 93068 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ATTN: Mr. K. McVay
Date: 15 Jan 1997 19:34:53 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 417
Sender: mstein@access.digex.net
Message-ID: <5bjt3d$ak1@access5.digex.net>
References: <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com> <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server> <5ba1n0$hae@access5.digex.net> <01bc00aa$659ba230$547213cc@server>
Reply-To: mstein@access.digex.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net

In article <01bc00aa$659ba230$547213cc@server>, Anthony Sabatini
(anthonys@infobahnos.com) wrote:
>Michael P. Stein (mstein@access5.digex.net) wrote in article
><5ba1n0$hae@access5.digex.net>...
>> In article <01bbffe9$4bfcc460$4c7213cc@server>,
>> Anthony Sabatini wrote:
>> >Ourobouros wrote in article <5b4r43$43u@lex.zippo.com>...
>
>[snip]
>
>> >I again challenge the Nizkorites to explain an easy method whereby
>someone
>> >browsing their archives can reconstruct a thread so that someone's
>comments
>> >have the benefit of their proper context with respect to previous
>messages
>> >and responses.
>> 
>>     http://www.dejanews.com
>
>Let's try this again. Read the above quote. You will notice that I asked
>how someone can recreate a thread browsing *their*, i.e., Nizkor's,
>archives.

    That is not quite what you wrote before - your previous wording was
ambiguous.  (If you really want a detailed explanation of why, contact me
by email - we are not on alt.usage.english.) Now that you have rephrased
the question unambiguously, there is no easy way - but it can be done.  It
is more time-consuming than I can stand, frankly, which is why I always go
to DejaNews first and only back to Nizkor as a fallback if DN missed the
article.


>> >AFAIK, the purpose of this archive is the equivalent of having a sword
>over
>> >your head. It exists as an implied threat so they can use your own words
>> >against you (twisted and deformed, of course!).
>> 
>>     Really?  Perhaps you can produce just one example of how the archives
>> have ever been used in a way that distorts the true meaning of the
>> original words.
>
>Well, yes. A quick look through DejaNews shows Nizkorites taking people's
>words and using them in replies to that person. This occurs many times, and
>I challenge Nizkor to prove otherwise. You see, Nizkor quotes from one
>thread to answer in another.

    "Nizkor" does this?  I have only seen individual people - not all of 
whom have any say whatsoever in what goes on in Nizkor - post articles in 
reply to other articles.


>As such, the original meaning of the quote, if
>not always "distorted", is certainly out of context.

    Let's try this again.  Read the above quote from me.  You will notice
that I asked for just one example of how the archives have ever been used
TO DISTORT (and I wasn't ambiguous).  If you would prefer that I phrase it
as "change the meaning," fine.

    Please - just go look for the very _worst_ example you can find by
anyone who is mentioned as a Nizkor contributor or writer of any feature
on Nizkor and bring it forward so everyone can see what you consider to be
the very worst example of Nizkor criminality.  So far you have just
asserted loudly, but you have offered no evidence that I have seen.  (Your
posts _are_ often missing from my server; I had to go to DejaNews to find
this one.  Email copies of responses are appreciated.) 

    I will note that I did actually do something of the sort recently in
order to make a joke.  But I explicitly said that it was out of context
immediately after making the quote - there was no dishonesty in the sense
that I was trying to trick people into thinking the meaning hadn't
changed. 

    If you think I should not be allowed to make jokes of that sort even
it's clearly marked as a joke, well, that's your opinion, and that's
something so subjective I can't debate it - people will either agree with
you or agree with me and we'll both have to live with the consequences. If
all you are complaining about are jokes of that sort, then just say so,
let everyone else decide if they think that's legitimate or not, and we
can move on to other matters.

    If you are complaining about things that weren't jokes, that's what I
want to talk about.  Because I _agree_ that distorting a quote by taking
it out of context and trying to fool people into thinking they are seeing
the true original meaning is a dishonest trick.  I just want to see the
evidence of what you are complaining about. 


>These are old
>public-speaking tricks used by politicians, professional liars and other
>ne'er-do-wells.

    So is the smear tactic of making allegations and refusing to provide 
evidence for them.


>>     It is true that your own words can be used against you.  The real
>> question is whether they are used fairly.  
>
>Indeed it is, Mr. Stein. As I noted above, you're tactics are very similar
>to those used by sneaky politicians.  Of course, it seems that you and your
>buddies judge what is fair use of quotes and what is not.

    Sure.  So does everyone else who reads them.  They either agree or 
they don't.  If they agree with you, that's my problem.  If they agree 
with me, that's your problem.  If you think they all agree with you, then 
why not let me look like a dishonest politician when I use quotes without 
reproducing every article ever written or responded to by the person I'm 
quoting?

    Of course, if you never produce your evidence, it makes it rather 
hard for people to decide if they agree with you, doesn't it?  But then, 
that's your problem.


>This is also an
>old trick. By continuously prodding someone with retorts such as, "Prove
>it", "Please produce...", "Really?", et. al, you are setting yourself up as
>the one in 'control' of the argument--a sort of judge as it were. This
>happens subtly. The effect is that you always have your opponent at a
>disadvantage. Brain-washing relies heavily on this technique.

    Not being able to produce any evidence to back up your unfounded
allegation also puts you at a disadvantage, doesn't it?  As it happens, it
would seem I clearly _am_ in control of the argument, and it's clear you
know that, and are engaging in all sorts of special pleading as to why you
don't have to back up your claims.  All you need do to regain control of
the argument is to provide the evidence to back them up.  Works for me.

    But I'm not the only judge here.  Everyone else reading this is free 
to make up their own minds - I couldn't stop 'em if I wanted to.  They 
can decide if I'm being unreasonable in asking you to provide evidence 
for your public accusation.  They can decide if you're being evasive in
failing to provide it.


>>If you deny saying something,
>> the archive can be used to prove you did.  If you tell a lie, the archive
>> can be used to prove you did.  Do you see something wrong with using the
>> archive to prove something which is in fact true?  Of course, you may
>also
>> use it in your defense if someone claims you said something which you did
>> not.
>
>Once again, we see how you subtly set up the 'rules' of the argument. By
>stating that I can also use archives, you are once again seeking to take
>control of the argument, asserting that you are the judge and you determine
>what is acceptable and what is not.

    Actually, what I thought I was doing was pointing out to you that the 
"sword" is double-edged - nobody can stop you from using the archives to 
your own advantage.  But I'm sure you know better than I do what I am 
thinking.


>It's all gobbledygook.  Of course I can
>use the archives! I don't need your permission nor do I need you to tell me
>that!

    *sigh*  Reminds me of the old joke about the American in Paris who 
asks, "Can we use your telephone?"  "Mais oui!"  "Look, buddy, I didn't 
ask for a grammar lesson!"

    Read "can" for "may" in my last sentence.  Better?


>> >With it, they give the
>> >impression that Big Brother is watching, so you'd better be careful what
>> >you say.
>> 
>>     I am careful what I say no matter who is or isn't watching.  I happen
>> to think that I ought only to say those things I am not ashamed to say,
>> and would not be afraid to defend.
>
>Here you are trying to install a false sense of fairness or morality--in
>effect, you are telling everyone what an honest and upright man you are,
>full of honor and integrity. Let the audience judge that. Don't tell people
>what to think of you.

    While you're at it, don't you think you should let the audience judge
whether I am trying to install a false sense of fairness or morality?  Or
are _you_ now the one trying to take control of the argument here and set
yourself up as the only judge?  I've got a track record here of nearly
three years.  I've got an archive too.  Anyone can look at it and see if
I'm acting true to character here or not. 

    Besides, people will think of me what they will no matter what I tell
them. 

    Of course, the same applies to you.

    Sounds like a good deal to me.


>> >I find this totally despicable and reprehensible, not to mention
>> >dishonest. (But don't worry, I am trying to give them a taste of their
>own
>> >medicine, using their own quotes from DejaNews in an attempt to show
>them
>> >what they are doing. I urge others to follow suit.)
>> 
>>     But who is doing what you've been doing with DejaNews?  You _have_
>> taken things out of context. 
>
>Once again, we see you asserting things, again in an attempt to 'take
>control' of the argument and further position yourself as judge. Let the
>audience decide if I "have taken things out of context". Stop trying to
>tell people what to think; let them formulate their own opinions.

    I have no problem with that.  Anyone who wishes to judge the truth or
falsity of my allegation should go to DejaNews (http://www.dejanews.com). 
Do a power search filtered on alt.revisionism and the subject line
"Opinion of what really happened."  Search for the quoted string "how
predictable."  Read the two articles that come up.  That's the evidence I
ask to be judged on. See if you agree with me or with Mr. Sabatini about
the fairness of what I did and the fairness of what he did. 

    See?  That's all there is to it.  I have no problem offering my
_evidence_ for allegations that I make.  Why do you have such heartburn
about my request that you simply do the same?


>> The archives are there in full context - the
>> _potential_ for abuse is there, but then it's there in privately-saved
>> posts as well.  However, what you are doing is showing people (including
>> me) what we _could_ be doing if we were dishonest.  
>
>Stop telling people what to think. You are insulting everyone who reads
>this thread. Let the audience decide what I "am doing".

    It never occurred to me that I could stop them if I tried.

    You know, I suspect they'll also probably decide for themselves if I'm
insulting them, without you telling them to think that I am. 

    Intellectual consistency is a bitch, ain't it?


>> Find me one example of
>> where someone you did it to _actually_ did it - that is, quoted something
>> of yours out of context in a way which distorted the meaning.
>
>The post where I replied to you using one of your own quotes. You had
>quoted me from a another thread, thereby taking my words "out of context".
>Do you want me to include the entire exchange here?

    No, I merely want you to explain how I distorted the meaning.  How did
the _meaning_ of the quoted sentence change from the original context to
the one in which I used it?  If the meaning changed, why are you having
such a hard time articulating what that change was?  If the meaning didn't
change, what is the problem? 

    But then, why don't you let the audience decide whether I've done
something unfair?

    Intellectual consistency is a bitch, ain't it? 


>>     You do know the difference between "are" and "could be," do you not?
>
>Of course, a parting jab is always fun, isn't it?

    Well, it is just my _opinion_ that you are evading and weaseling,
because you cannot produce evidence or argument to support your
accusations.  If you think I'm wrong, and that everyone can see that I'm
wrong, what's the problem? 


>> >Of course, the Nizkorites will feign ignorance
>> 
>>     My ignorance is not feigned.  I am genuinely unaware of anyone
>> involved with Nizkor taking words out of context deliberately.  As I said
>> once before, if you have such examples, let me know.  I will have very
>> strong words with whoever is responsible.  
>
>Oh, puh-leaze, Mr. Stein! Stop acting the part of Noble Knight of Truth and
>Integrity (TM)! Who are you trying to fool, anyway?

    Why can't you let the audience decide (in the context of my nearly
three years of posting here) whether I am "acting" or "trying to fool"
anyone? 

    Intellectual consistency is a bitch, ain't it?


>> But as I also said before, you
>> should really provide sufficient context in your posts, and DejaNews
>> already provides a backup server to read threads from.
>
>You do not make the rules here, Mr. Stein. Stop trying to play the role of
>judge in this dispute. You don't make the rules, nor should you tell people
>what to do. Must everyone else try to satisfy your requirements? Who the
>Hell do you think you are, anyway?

    I think I am a person with a great deal of knowledge and experience
who was just offering you (and everyone else) some sound advice.  I
genuinely believe it would be to the advantage of anyone following it -
it's something I do myself, entirely for my own benefit.  I explained the
technical reasons why context can be lost by accident.  If you choose to
ignore my advice, that is certainly your right.

    I also advise you not to take a bath with a plugged-in radio on the
edge of the tub and a rambunctious two-year-old or a friendly Irish Setter
with a waggy tail in the room with you.  But hey, if you feel like doing
so just to put me in my place and show that I don't make the rules around
here, that too is certainly your right.


>> >or strongly protest
>> >otherwise. It is to be expected considering their well-documented
>tactics.
>> 
>>     Perhaps you could point to some of that documentation.
>
>I will soon be posting an article detailing Nizkor's tactics. The proof
>will always be available on DejaNews (as the Nizkorites are so fond of
>pointing out). Stay tuned, folks!

    I trust you _will_ actually tell people how to find the articles
rather than just asserting that they are there?  If so, fine.  All I asked
for was the evidence.  If you really are going to provide it, then I'm
happy.  I might even find examples where I agree with you.  But until you
produce that evidence, nobody (including me) will ever know.  I can't
understand why you don't just supply that evidence now instead of wasting
time complaining about how I'm trying to "control the debate" by asking
for it.  Well, that too is your prerogative I suppose.  People will think
of it what they will.  Right?


>>     Perhaps not.
>
>Your sarcasm is unbecoming of the 'honest', Defender of Truth (TM) persona
>you wish to project to the audience. A slip, Mr. Stein?

    Why don't you let the audience decide whether my sarcasm is 
appropriate to the situation or not?  Or whether I'm trying to project any
particular persona?

    Intellectual consistency is a bitch, ain't it?


>> >As an aside, I find it interesting to note that their "persons" database
>> >does not include one Joel Rosenberg, a noted loud-mouth and
>well-documented
>> >spewer of obscenities and other nonsensical writings. I am quite certain
>he
>> >belongs to this organization, even if not "officially".
>> 
>>     Now, how would he belong to the organization "unofficially?"
>
>By loose association. He seems to defend your group quite often, and is
>often involved in disputes between Nizkor (not necessarily Holocaust
>revisionism) and their detractors. Again, a quick look at DejaNews will
>prove this to be the case.

    I will freely admit that he does those things; the question is whether
that activity makes him an unofficial member.  I'll let the audience
decide if this is a valid argument or not. 


>> >(Now watch the Nizkorites ask me for proof!)
>> 
>>     I will merely point out that you are clearly attempting to make a
>> guilt-by-association attack on Nizkor without even having proof of the
>> association.
>
>The proof is at DejaNews.

    Again, I have stipulated that Joel Rosenberg behaves as you say; I
have on one occasion rebuked him myself, in public, for something he did. 
I will let the audience decide if his support constitutes being an
"unofficial member" of Nizkor. 

    Of course, since you appear to be a Nizkor detractor, and Matt Giwer
is a Nizkor detractor, you might want to reconsider whether you really
want to try to claim that guilt by association is a valid form of
argument.  I advise you to read his archives before making your decision. 
But again, I know and accept that if you choose to ignore my advice that
is your prerogative. 


>>     Is it OK for me to say that I am quite certain that you belong to the
>> Mafia, even if not "officially?"  Even without any proof?
>
>Go ahead, Mr. Stein. You seem to be quite good at making assertions.

    I asked a _question_.  I asked for your opinion about the ethics of a
certain type of behavior.  One can only wonder as to why you chose not to
answer, but that's your prerogative.

    Yes, I am quite good at making assertions - I like to think my
assertions are almost always clear and comprehensible, written in literate
English, and sometimes even witty.  Now, whether I make a _lot_ of
assertions is another question, as is the question of whether they are
reasonable assertions to make.  I attempt to make them reasonable enough
that the neutral observer of average intelligence and honesty will agree
by inspection that they are reasonable.  Of course I might misjudge, and
get asked to back up my assertions, but that's my problem if I do.

    What you haven't yet tried is seeing how good I am at backing up my
assertions with evidence and argument if and when challenged.  Is there
any particular one of my assertions you would like to see backed up? Since
I've asked you to back up yours (I'll let the audience decide whether you
have responded reasonably to my request), it's only fair that I can be
called upon to back up mine.  Try me if you like.  Feel perfectly free to
use all those nasty techniques you accused me of using, and see if you can
control the argument (at least, in a way that works to your advantage) by
using them.  You might just find it's harder than you think. 

[remainder snipped]

    Posted/emailed.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor