Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 12:46:44 -0700 From: Marty Kelley
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Tom Moran Can't read (again!) (Was Re: Holocaust Specifications For "Proof") On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, tom moran wrote, yet again: > > > Nov. 8, 1993, New York Times, Letter to the Editor; > > "Need to Refute the Deniers of the Holocaust" > by Deborah Lipstadt. > > "Jean Claude Pressac's book detailing how the Nazis gas chambers > at Auschwitz actually worked has elicited condemnation from a variety > of sources contending that '"genocide was possible because it > happened"'. Deborah didn't fill the readers in on the first part of > the quote for some reason, but as it appears, her part of the quote > elicits the idea the quoter is agreeing with the story. > Anyway, the gist of her mentality and criteria for historical > accuracy lies in her statement "They argue Pressac's book is > superfluous; the tears of the survivors should be sufficient proof." > > Let me reiterate Deborah's terse statement on historical > accounting; > > "...; THE TEARS OF THE SURVIVORS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT PROOF". > > Randonm House Dictionary: "sufficient: 1. adequate for the > purpose" But golly, Mr. Moran--she is saying that this is what OTHERS say. She is not saying that she believes this--in fact, she goes on to explicitly say that Holocaust deniers must be countered with facts, and that therefore Pressac's book is necessary. Hey, let's look again at the full text of her letter.... " Jean Claude Pressac's book detailing how the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz actually worked (news article, Oct. 28, Week in Review Oct 31) has elicited condemnation from a variety of sources contending that "genocide was possible because it happened." They argue that Pressac's work is superfluous; the tears of the survivors should be sufficient proof. " In the best of all possible worlds they would be right. The testimony of those who suffered as well as the corroboration of the perpetrators themselves would be the ultimate proof. But eventually the survivors will pass on and future generations will seek this documentation. Moreover, we live in a world where a small group of people, many of whom have an anti-Semitic and neo-fascist agenda, labor assiduously to convince future generations that the Holocaust was a hoax. Irrespective of their motives, their claims are utter nonsense. But as recent polls have shown, some people have been confused by them. They see the deniers as the "other side" of a debate. Mr. Pressac's book adds to the pre-existing mound of documentary evidence and testimony which describes how such a horror happened. I too have been challenged as to why I had to write a book exposing the background and methodology of the deniers. Had they been ignored from the outset, my book would also be superfluous. But too many people, including naive students and talk show hosts, treat them as an other "point of view." So a comprehensive analysis of the deniers was necessary. Deborah E. Lipstadt Atlanta, Nov. 2, 1993 (_NY Times_, Nov 8, 1993, p. A-18) Mr. Moran apparently does not understand the concept of attributing a statement to others in order to refute it. Here's a scenario: Suppose Mr. Moran wrote "There are some who claim that the Holocaust happened, that millions of innocent people were wiped out by the Nazis," and then went on to argue that he didn't think that was the case. Would Mr Moran consider it accurate if I then wrote, "Tom Moran admits that `Millions of innocent people were wiped out by the Nazis'"? That's precisely equivalent to what he's done to Lipstadt's text, although Mr. Moran seems wholly unable to recognize it. ---------------------- Marty Kelley (mkelley@U.Arizona.EDU) "The level of discourse in campaigns is so low, we really may as well get in a tub of Jello and wrestle." --Rep. Patricia Schroeder, on Comedy Central's "Politically Incorrect"
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor