Sorry, Charlie!

[UseNet headers trimmed]

From: [email protected] (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Giwer trolls about Nizkor, for the last time
Date: 4 Jul 1996 17:28:30 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

Oh, hell with it, let’s end the game.

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:

There are at least a dozen people who know exactly where to find the two mentions of the two trials of Höss if they were not censored from Nizkor. Stein has said he has done a content based search of the site and says he found no such mention. Therefore the material is censored.

Now I will point out the fact that Matt lied here.

I never said that I found no mention. My precise words (and my words are almost always precise) were: Date: 1996/06/12

Not even Altavista can find what does not exist. But you know that. I searched for all files mentioning “Rudenko” to look for verification of the story that Rudenko lost the first case against Höss, which you said you found on Nizkor. No such file.

Date: 1996/06/20

However, I have an account on Nizkor, and I can search the files by content. When Giwer claimed that there was a file on Nizkor saying that Rudenko lost one case against Höss for lack of evidence, I did a case-insensitive search on “Ruden” and “enko” (to catch any line breaks in the middle of the word). No file which turned up in that search matched Giwer’s description of what he had read.

Please keep the precise words I used in mind. They are important, because (as Mr. Giwer has told us) words have meanings. “That is a very bizarre definition of censored. Nizkor does not contain all material related to the Holocaust and makes no claim that it does. There are financial, logistical and legal problems with doing that. Material cannot be put on Nizkor until someone has read it.

“Except in the psychological definition, censorship carries the connotation of a conscious intent to conceal information. And even on the psychological definition, there has to be some opportunity for awareness before the censorship can truly be said to exist.

“Hilberg is unfamiliar with many books about the Holocaust just as I am confident that Mr. Giwer is unfamiliar with books about physics – nobody has the time to read everything that is published on a topic. Ken McVay is certainly no exception, nor am I.

“If a library is unaware of a book, it is not censoring the book by not carrying it. If it would like to buy it but ran out of funds before it could be purchased, that is not censorship either by any reasonable use of the word.

“Why is Altavista unable to find the information on a revisionist site? Would Mr. Giwer agree that Zündel‘s site and Bradley Smith‘s site and Greg Raven‘s site are also censored, then? One would certainly think they would play the information up for all it’s worth – yet they don’t seem to have it either, not if `Rudenko’ should yield a match.”

“Do I have to create another riddle to help you figure out how I know this? All of those dozen people know exactly what I claim is true every time you folks are unable to find those mentions.”

This is what Mr. Giwer wrote originally:


“You really should search off of the “guess the filename” possibilities to discover that General Rudenko lost the case against the infamous Rudolph Höss on charges of gassing for lack of evidence of gassing from the people who were there at the time.

“You will find the supporting evidence for this assertion on the Nizkor site and including in the EYEWITNESS testimony of an investigator of war crimes. ”



The original wording of the claim certainly conveyed the impression he had read the original information on Nizkor.

“That is your assumption.
The following is a riddle.
I did not originally read it there but I know it is there. How do I know?”

Because it is in your own reposts of Al Gentile’s articles, of course, and it was archived. I knew that before I wrote my previous article. But I know something else you don’t know.

You screwed up the troll, Matt. Twice. You said the supporting evidence was on Nizkor. First, by your own definition, what you and Al Gentile say is not “evidence.” In fact, because it is unsworn, it is not even evidence in the legal sense. So either you lied or you now accept that testimony is evidence after all.

The second and worse screwup is that you said that the evidence was in the eyewitness testimony by a war crimes investigator. Read Al Gentile’s statement again, carefully. I’ll wait.

Did you catch where you blew it? Nowhere did Gentile say he witnessed this trial by Rudenko. Therefore not even unsworn eyewitness testimony to this first Höss trial exists on Nizkor. Nothing was censored, but the evidence you claim should be there is not there. At best there is some hearsay – but you know that is not the same thing. (And notice that Gentile went on to make the false statement that Höss never wrote anything.)

You lied, Matt. Twice – once on the evidence being in the eyewitness testimony of a war crimes investigator, and once on the censorship. It’s that simple. Your alleged dozen people can’t know what you claim is true, because it isn’t true. You trolled, but you screwed up.

You lied a third time when you said I found no mention. I did not say that. I very precisely said the first time that I looked for verification. No such file. Of course I found the story. But Gentile’s story, which did not claim to be eyewitness testimony and gave no references, cannot verify itself. You know that.

The second time I very precisely said that it did not match your description, which was:

You will find the supporting evidence for this assertion on the Nizkor site and including in the EYEWITNESS testimony of an investigator of war crimes.

Again, I found the Gentile story. But it was not eyewitness testimony to the “first” Höss trial, nor a reference to proper documentation, and therefore not supporting evidence. Therefore, just as I said, the file did not match your description. If you are claiming the Gentile story as support for your assertion, then you are supported only by another assertion – which is to say, no support at all.

But not once did I say that I found no mention. When you wrote, “Stein has said he has done a content based search of the site and says he found no such mention,” you openly lied about what I had said.

Therefore you are a lying troll exactly as many people have been saying for some time now. This is not an attack. This is a simple statement of fact. I cannot change that. Only you can change that.


As I said last time:

It should be noted that Mr. Giwer appears to have misread text on multiple occasions. For that reason alone it would be irresponsible to accept what he says here as true without independent confirmation.

You are an incompetent and illiterate lying troll. I cannot change that, either. Neither can you, I suspect.

Oh, and since you fell for my troll hook, line, and sinker, you are also a brainless fish. Sorry, Charlie.

Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.