Path: news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.movies.spielberg,soc.history,alt.usenet.kooks Subject: Hoffman runs in terror fror challenge Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks Date: 3 Jun 1997 13:29:27 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 127 Message-ID: <email@example.com> References:
Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net Xref: news2.digex.net alt.revisionism:168982 alt.movies.spielberg:9701 soc.history:89280 alt.usenet.kooks:60138 In article , Michael A. Hoffman II wrote: >Stein Offers $5,000 to buy his way out of his dilemma No, Stein simply shows Hoffman up for the fraud he is. [dozens of lines of weaseling and evasion snipped] >Stein refers to Morgen's affidavit and says, "nothing linked any specific >charge to any specific person." > >But here's Morgen's affidavit: "all of these offenses" (brutality and a >license to kill) were committed by "personnel of the SS...commandants >of...Krakau-Plaszow" (Amon Goeth). > >--From Affidavit SS-65 by SS Judge Konrad Morgen, IMT Vol. 42, p. 556. > >Now presumably Stein can read. Presumably everyone else can see the same sneaky ellipsis dots as I can. They're the same ellipsis dots that turn the movie reviewer's "This film was a great disappointment" into the advertising page's "This film was ... great." >There's nothing "ambiguous" about what >Morgen wrote--Morgen says that ALL the offenses cited were committed by >the commandants cited and he specifically cites, among these, the >commandant of Krakau-Plaszow, and this was Amon Goeth. You can assert that all you like. Reality will not be impressed. You have been offered a chance to have this dispute judged by a neutral referee. You are running away. All your bluster cannot conceal the fact that I am willing to submit our dispute to a neutral party, but you will only debate when you can judge yourself the winner. >Stein has no credible answer to this. Again, I will happily debate you on this point in front of a neutral arbiter. >And it's not kosher for him to apologize and admit his lying. Usenet contains a number of examples of public apologies for my errors, which are relatively few. When you find an example of my lying, do let everyone know. >Hence he's reached a cul-de-sac: no spiffy sleight of hand, no >circumlocutions. All of these at this juncture--when I have my rapier at >his throat and his back against the wall--would be transparent sophistry. > >So, in a gesture of futility that is the last resort of his kind, he has >to reach into his pocket and wave some loot around: > >"$5,000 that a college English professor selected at random will agree >with me that the text is ambiguous as to which individuals were accused of >which crimes, and that no such definite conclusion can be reached based on >this affidavit alone. Money to be escrowed in advance...It is time to put >your money where your lying mouth is." (Mike Stein, June 3, 1997). I'll do it for free, if you're too cowardly to risk your money. The only stakes are that the loser must post a public apology to the winner. Are you game now? >Note Stein's addition of a new criterion: > > "...based on this affidavit ALONE" (emphasis supplied). > >A sneaky little interpolation, but that's how Mr. Stein operates. > >I wonder what has happened to my original framework: "Keneally, Ainsztein, >and the affidavits of Morgen and Mittelstadt" ? >Gone, vanished with a wave of a magic Jewish wand. I don't term him >"Slippery" for nothing! You dropped them from your own list. But sure, I'll happily add them back in. The text from the Mittelstadt affidavit which you posted two years ago had the same defect of ambiguity as the Morgen affidavit. If that was your only objection, it is now removed. Shall we proceed to settling this matter once and for all? >I also like the part about a college English professor "selected at >random." Can one imagine what one of that faculty turkey flock will do >when he observes that the text at issue is part of an exchange between a >Jewish saint and martyr of the cosmos (Mr. Mike P. Stein) and a vicious >denier of the verities of the Church of the Six Million (that no-goodnik >Hoffman)? We can stipulate that a neutral party will choose the professor. There are methods of doing it where each of us supplies one half of the selection criteria in a way that neither of us can influence the outcome, or even know what the outcome is until the neutral party receives the verdict, and yet the result of the selection can be verified. We can also agree on the exact text of the instructions to the judge. Another objection disposed of. Shall we proceed? >I don't need remedial English lessons "arbitrated" by some professor or >labyrinthe Talmudic responses to clear-cut cases of fraud. In other words, you cannot debate in a forum where you are not also the judge. I understand perfectly. >But Stein does need a lesson in ethics. > >Thou shalt not bear false witness, Mr. Stein. > >And an addendum: Thou shalt tame thy Jewish arrogance and not assume too >much when crossing swords with krauts. I never assumed you had any integrity. I was just demonstrating that fact in a way that would be transparent to all. You have not exceeded my expectations. 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.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor