Question One ------------ In a conversation with Peter Kramer, in which he mentioned cyanide, you asked: "You mean the special formula while having Zyclon B, but doesn't leave traces in concrete like the Germans used at Auchwitz?" (McKinstry, All Jew Haters Read This) Since the presence of HCN traces in the gas chambers at Auschwitz has been established by the Krakow Institute, and even by the widely-discredited Fred Leuchter, whose conclusions from this presence flew in the face of reality, I would like you to tell us which gas chamber's ruins do not Work Cited McKinstry, Colin. UseNet alt.politics.white-power. Subject: "Re: All Jew Haters Read This," June 9, 1995. Message-ID: cmck02-0906951119010001@gl_4.cs.auckland.ac.nz From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu Jun 15 05:55:08 PDT 1995 Article: 5698 of alt.politics.nationalism.white Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!iglou!dyn024.slip.iglou.com!user From: email@example.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) Subject: Re: Hybrid vigour and civilization X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyn024.slip.iglou.com Message-ID:
Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org (News Administrator) Organization: IgLou Internet Services References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 02:24:33 GMT Lines: 75 In article , firstname.lastname@example.org (McKinstry) wrote: > > > While you like to say we have an open minded and scientific course. Would > > > you please explain why natural anthropology is a banned discipline. Got > > > outlawed completely about ten years ago. > > > > McKinstry adopts the Griswoldian tactic of assertion sans substantiation. > > Where was this "discipline" banned? Who banned it? What are the relevant > > citations to the law that bans it? > > It was banned because it explains the races. Which a desiring to be > multicultural governments couldn't afford to have. Hence why it was > banned. You still fail to provide any substantiation for your charge. You have merely repeated it, and embroidered it a bit. Not one word of your reply constitutes proof. I suppose you could have misunderstood the question. I doubt it; it is far more likely that you are trying desperately to avoid admitting that no such ban exists. You say the ban was enacted "about ten years ago": it follows that some specific act, by some specific body, instituted the ban. Let me rephrase the questions, so as to avoid all possibility of misunderstanding, whether honest or deliberate: 1) Who, specifically, banned the study of 'natural anthropology'? ("Multicultural governments" is not a specific. "The government of Freedonia", for example, would be. Do you understand what 'specific' means in this context? An actual name of an actual person or group of persons, up to and including a national government or international body governing some aspect of scientific study, is specific. A vague, handwaving "they" is not.) 2) When and where was the ban enacted? (Specifics, again, are necessary.) 3) Where can documentation of the ban, specifying just what type of study is banned and what the penalties will follow upon violation of the ban, be found? Specific documents, dates, and page numbers must be given. There is a common tactic, used many times before here and elsewhere by others like McKinstry. It consists of saying, in effect: "I know this is true. You're just ignorant of the facts of the matter. Why should I do your homework for you? Go look it up yourself." This is not a valid tactic: it conveniently overlooks the clear obligation of he who raises a point or makes a claim to establish the evidence for said claim. It is not the task of those who challenge a claim to back it up with evidence; it is the task of those who make the claim to do so. > > > I've been tempted to reproduce > > > some articles but with the Western Governments ranting and raving over the > > > evil internet I didn't want to give them some real ammunition. > > > > A more likely explanation is that the evidence for McKinstry's alleged ban > > simply does not exist. > > > Gee, my ego has been damaged. Why didn't you just say chicken? If you insist. You are chicken: you fear that you cannot produce the evidence for said ban, because no such ban exists. > One day I might just reproduce some texts. Just be > prepared for a lot of reading. Though only once the heat dies down on the > propaganda against the Internet. Since you have not defined what "heat dies down" means, you have given yourself the perfect excuse to never post the evidence you claim to possess. JGB ===================================================================== Jeffrey G. Brown email@example.com "What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor