Archive/File: holocaust/usa/ihr webers.letter Last-Modified: 1994/06/02 Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: LEST WE FORGET: The Letter Mark Weber Won't Print.. Followup-To: alt.revisionism Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA Keywords: weber,Prodigy The following letter, addressed to Mark Weber, Editor of the IHR Newsletter, has never been published. As one who claims to support "freedom of speech", perhaps Mr. Weber would like to explain this, er, oversight. While he's at it, perhaps he can explain why he would not debate the author of this letter on Prodigy, or why he won't answer calls that he debate the issues surrounding Holocaust-denial here, before ten million judges. For a complete text of the article which originally accompanied this letter, you are invited to request WEBERS.FEET from The Old Frog's Alamanc - just write to firstname.lastname@example.org. February 27, 1992 Mark Weber, Editor IHR Newsletter Institute of Historical Review 1822 1/2 Newport Blvd. Suite 191 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear Mr. Weber: I read with interest the article in your IHR Newsletter #85 February 1992 concerning [the network] and me. This is truly a work of revisionism (e.g. distorting the facts to fit into your personal view of the world) and, since those connected with the IHR claim that they are eager to be taken seriously, it is surprising that I was not contacted for comment before you went to press. Let's get the facts straight. Your "IHR activist" was posting messages denying the Holocaust. I responded. He claimed that no one was willing to debate the Holocaust. This, of course, is absurd. I told him that he could name his sources and begin. He posted a message about The Leuchter Report. I rebutted his erroneous statements. (By the way, I don't believe he has read the report. You might want to check on that before you encourage his "activism" too much.) He then suddenly claimed on the public board that he didn't have time to debate and he was trying to get someone online from the IHR. I responded by telling him that everyone was welcome. That is when he contacted you and you agreed to come online. What your "IHR activist" presented to me were a set of ridiculous conditions. They included that the debate take place only between you and me and that it be advertized on [the network]. I was told to contact the "Arts Club Leader" to urge her to agree. First, [the Arts Club Leader] doesn't have the authority to grant such requests. Even if she did, as I told your "activist," there are no precedents to such a closed debate on Prodigy and that involving the Arts Club Leader might even be counter- productive. My reasoning was this: "In fact, involving the Arts Club leader might be counter-productive in that it calls attention to this single debate and, if it ever begins, our messages might undergo closer scrutiny by the censors. I don't think either of us wants that." In fact, since you are such a champion for "open debate," I was very surprised that you wished for this one to be closed to others. One of the amusing requirements for your participation in the debate was an agreement by me that I would have no outside help (whatever that means). This amusement I expressed to your "activist" in the following quote: "I am an amateur (i.e. I don't get paid by anyone to research the Holocaust, I am not employed by anyone or any organization that has an interest in the Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.). You have presented yourself in the same manner. Mr. Weber, I think you would agree, is a professional. There is no prohibition against him joining the discussion but I do think it odd that you ask that I not ask for any outside help when you are bringing in a professional." If you notice, I claim amateur status because I don't get paid - not because I am not a "scholar" or because it would be "unfair" for me to have to debate a professional. Yet, you are apparently so frightened of debating in a situation where you cannot control all the factors that I heard nothing else from you or your "activist." Please notice, I did not say I wouldn't agree to your terms regarding outside help. I only said that I found it "odd" that a professional would insist on such a term before debating an amateur. However, the greatest part of your article had to be the sub-headline of "Another Anti-Revisionist Gets Cold Feet." I assure you, Mr. Weber, that my feet are toasty warm. In fact, I closed my message to your "activist" with the following: "I guess the main question is: Do you and Mr. Weber desire to have an open discussion or not? If so, post a message (either on your own or one on behalf of Mr. Weber). That is the manner in which all other discussions are initiated on [the network] and I don't see any need to make an exception for this one." I am still waiting for an answer to that question. What temperature are your feet, Mr. Weber? Sincerely, --30-- Those of you who wish to satisfy yourself with regard to Mr. Weber's fear of open debate here on UseNet might find it amusing to print this letter and mail it to him, at the above address, along with your personal invitation to join us for a chat. Followup to alt.revisionism.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor