Brumlik to Weber, Brumlik Stephanie

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?