Friday, March 18, 2005

AP Wire and bloggers weigh in on the C-Span issue

AP did a bylined article on the petition which first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News. Many other media outlets throughout the US, some in Canada, and even in India have picked up this article!

Most of the headlines got it right: "Historians irked by C-Span program"; however, in later postings this appears as: "Historians irked by C-Span's plans to air alleged Holocaust denier". Alleged??!

If you do a Google search for "C-Span + Lipstadt" you will see that this matter has been the topic of discussion on many blogs including Little Green Footballs, Solomonia and Blogcritics.org

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

"This subject has been the subject of discussion on many bloggs"

Oh my God! You mean "discussion"? You know like, where people air their views and everyone gets to hear all shades of opinion?

Oh my God! Look what that bastard Irving has started

Mark Issaf said...

Anonymous,

C'mon...fess up, how badly does it sting that your poster boy got his ass handed to him in court and your other hero is going to have something else happen to his ass within a jail cell in Germany?

anonymous said...

Prof. Lipstadt, how much did Irving pay you for such a nice ad campaign?

anonymous said...

According to Wikipedia:

"Observers also point to the hyperbolic language and dehumanizing slurs employed by some commenters (e.g., "Palesimians," "Oil Ticks," "koranimals," "ragheads") and charge the webmaster with encouraging groupthink, jingoism, and Islamophobia."

Also take a look at http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

Are you glad now that a fascist blog supports you?

Tom said...

This is important: what Ms. Lipstadt is doing is wrong.

To give people the impression that Irving thinks and others think that Jews didn't die in camps or were not killed in camps is disgusting. Her vicious tactics are hurting people, now clearly she wants C-SPAN "damaged" if they dare let Irving speak. Please read:
Not Libel?

iAmerican said...

Rome's false aristocracy did the Holocaust, through Knights of Malta like Fritz Thyssen and Prescott Bush, in keeping with hired-help Hitler's reading primer, DeHarbe's Catechism's extolling the "noble Roman soldiers" who slaughtered "by sword and flame" "one million and one hundred thousand Jews" as "proof of the Divine Judgement against those who murdered Our Saviour."

How "curious" that crucifixion was the specific and unique Roman law code punishment meted out for only one specific crime: the second conviction for sedition.

Roman Catholic C-SPAN, in keeping with their policy of disinformation (note their Lincoln assassination "expert" "unaware" that all but one of President Lincoln's convicted assassins were practicing Roman Catholics) is attempting to continue the coverup of Rome's, and their American Fifth Column Rockefeller/Bush/Nixon-faction's, Holocaust/Ratline/Vietnam/JFK-assassination complicity...and on to PNAC's "9/11" and service to Roman Catholic "Big Oil" and their Roman Catholic Iraqi "Chaldeans" through Knight of Malta George Schultz-tapped pervert Bonesman and draft-dodger hypocrite George W. Bush...representing the fourth generation of his family in league with Vatican-banker, and Oil Monopoly-builder through "murder and arson", Rockefeller.

...and lo, see more homosexual prostitutes in another Bush White House...Jumpin' Jehosophat!

Thomas Jefferson To Samuel Kercheval
Monticello, January 19, 1810

SIR, -- Yours of the 7th instant has been duly received, with the pamphlet inclosed, for which I return you my thanks. Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Oberststuhlherr said...

Irving and his ilk have accused you and yours with historical perjury. You stand accused, not merely of bearing false witness
against an individual, or small group of conspirators, but against an entire nation; indeed, against an entire civilization. A great and
glorious civilization. We do not take such charges lightly.

Originally the charges against you seemed preposterous. We found it
almost inconceivable that anyone would have the unmittegated audacity to tell a lie this big. However, upon further examination (which is the duty of a fair-minded and just court) we have found sufficient grounds to require a hearing. You have been given the opportunity to present your case in public and, to face your accuser. We urge you strongly to make use of that opportunity to appear before the court of
public opinion.

david gehrig said...

As the academic petition now circulating demonstrates quite handily, Prof Lipstadt's doing just fine in the court of public opinion. It's Irving who has to furtively dart from secretive meeting to secretive meeting.

@%<

david gehrig said...

I guess I could also add, it's pretty funny to see people complaining about the more abhorrent right-wing blogs that side with Lipstadt over C-SPAN -- have they checked out the impressive collection of swastika-festooned proto-Neanderthals backing Herr Irving? It's an illuminating exercise in defining Irving's key audience.

@%<

anonymous said...

[[I guess I could also add, it's pretty funny to see people complaining about the more abhorrent right-wing blogs that side with Lipstadt over C-SPAN -- have they checked out the impressive collection of swastika-festooned proto-Neanderthals backing Herr Irving? It's an illuminating exercise in defining Irving's key audience.]]

And exactly what is funny about this? It's a given that Irving is a right-wing bigot. What IS funny is how some people think that only deniers or Irving-supporters would criticize Lipstadt.

david gehrig said...

And who exactly has said that? One of the longest threads on this blog until the C-SPAN bit was about a stupid attack on Prof Lipstadt by Ward Churchill, not exactly a leading conservative or a Holocaust denier. So who's trying to pigeonhole whom?

@%<

anonymous said...

[[And who exactly has said that?]]

Let's see... How about you?

[[[I guess I could also add, it's pretty funny to see people complaining about the more abhorrent right-wing blogs that side with Lipstadt over C-SPAN -- have they checked out the impressive collection of swastika-festooned proto-Neanderthals backing Herr Irving?]]]

The assumption that these people do not hold the similar views about Irving (how on Earth is he relevant at all here?) is apparent.

[[One of the longest threads on this blog until the C-SPAN bit was about a stupid attack on Prof Lipstadt by Ward Churchill, not exactly a leading conservative or a Holocaust denier.]]

And how this supposedly stupid attack on Deborah Lipstadt by Prof. Churchill is relevant?

david gehrig said...

"Let's see... How about you?"

Not very good at this, are you. Let me spell it out step by step.

(1) You accused me of lumping all of Lipstadt's critics into the jackboot league. A great many of them are of the jackboot league, but you'll search in vain for a place where I said they all are.

(2) You accused me nonetheless of saying they all were -- that is, by saying "How about you?" you explicitly include me among those who "think only deniers or Irving-supporters would criticize Lipstadt."

(3) I demonstrated via a counterexample that, no, I do not believe that "only deniers or Irving-supporters would criticize Lipstadt." And the counterexample comes from this very blog, which is what makes Churchill relevant to my post. (Another far-left figure who's attacked Prof. Lipstadt is Norm Finkelstein.)

Happy to help.

@%<

anonymous said...

[[(1) You accused me of lumping all of Lipstadt's critics into the jackboot league.]]

The statement below implies this.

[[[I guess I could also add, it's pretty funny to see people complaining about the more abhorrent right-wing blogs that side with Lipstadt over C-SPAN -- have they checked out the impressive collection of swastika-festooned proto-Neanderthals backing Herr Irving?]]]

[[(3) I demonstrated via a counterexample]]

It's not my fault that you're writing contradictory things.

[[I do not believe that "only deniers or Irving-supporters would criticize Lipstadt.]]

Then you shouldn't have asked whether they have "checked out the impressive collection of swastika-festooned proto-Neanderthals backing Herr Irving", which implies that these people do not share the similar view about Irving, which in turn implies that either they're hypocritical supporters of Irving, hypocritical deniers or, much less probably (considering the nature of this blog), the people ignorant of Irving's views, but still holding him in higher esteem than Lipstadt (because otherwise the mere mention of Irving is irrelevant).

david gehrig said...

You're trying so hard, tying yourself into knots, trying to force words in my mouth that just weren't there, either directly or by implication. And it's just not working, no matter how ornately you tie the knots. But feel free to try harder. It's kinda fun to watch.

Support for Lipstadt is not a matter of left versus right, but of duplicitous extremism versus reality. The far-far-right has proven itself just as capable as the far-far-left of saying idiot things about Prof Lipstadt. But once you escape the fringes of the fringes, Irving's support drops well, well below the Elvis-is-alive-and-living-in-Dubuque range.

There, I've given you a whole new paragraph to distort and lie about. Let's see what you can make of it.

@%<

anonymous said...

[[You're trying so hard, tying yourself into knots, trying to force words in my mouth that just weren't there, either directly or by implication.]]

Ha ha. Now let's see who REALLY does that.

[[Support for Lipstadt is not a matter of left versus right, but of duplicitous extremism versus reality.]]

Wrong. It's neither. Lipstadt is not some kind of ideal to warrant support of all reasonable people. But the main fact to keep in mind is that I never claimed that support for Lipstadt was "a matter of left versus right". Who is Mr. Gehrig arguing against? Some imaginary opponent? Windmill? Straw-man? It is not the first time Mr. Gehrig tries to reframe what I have said into something completely different. Earlier he stated:

[[And who exactly has said that? One of the longest threads on this blog until the C-SPAN bit was about a stupid attack on Prof Lipstadt by Ward Churchill, not exactly a leading conservative or a Holocaust denier. So who's trying to pigeonhole whom?]]

Now, what does Churchill's not being "a leading convervative" has to do with the issue at hand?

So now we see who distorts facts here.

[[There, I've given you a whole new paragraph to distort and lie about.]]

But Mr. Gehrig hasn't shown any distortion or a lie. In fact, it is he who is the distorter here. Let's not forget that it was he who has asked whether some people pointing out that certain abhorrent right-wing blog endorsed Lipstadt (meaning me) have "checked out the impressive collection of swastika-festooned proto-Neanderthals backing Herr Irving", which implies that either they're hypocritical supporters of Irving, hypocritical deniers or, much less probably (considering the nature of this blog), the people ignorant of Irving's views, but still holding him in higher esteem than Lipstadt (because otherwise the mere mention of Irving is irrelevant).

In other words, it was Mr. Gehrig, who made a dishonest insinuation that, in effect, any critic of Lipstadt must be an Irving-supporter or denier. His irrelevant bit about Irving is hard to interpret otherwise, and, what's more important, Mr. Gehrig didn't even try to do it.

Then he denied his insinuation, by pointing out his statement, which contradicted what he himself has said. Then he accused someone who has pointed out his distortions of lying and distorting. Such is our good Mr. Gehrig.

david gehrig said...

* rolling eyes *

So the Anonymous Amateur Rhetoritician Hour continues. The anonym has lost his never-better-than-tenuous point, but hopes that if he throws enough chaff into the radar beam at least some reader somewhere won't notice how badly he's played it.

Keep your eyes on the ball, folks. Never once do the fingers leave my hand.

Did I say all of Lipstadt's critics were right-wing loons and deniers? Nope. Never once. The anonym says I did. Well, okay, did by implication. Well, okay okay, did by potential implication of the "if you mention a green crayon you're actually by implication denying the existence of red crayons" variety.

In fact, in this thread I've explicitly given not one but two counter-examples of left-wing loons who've attacked her, which the anonym claims merely proves that I've somehow contradicted a statement that I actually never made in the first place.

Green crayon. Oh, darn it, there I go denying by implication the existence of red crayons again.

At any rate, unless you can come up with something new -- like being logically effective, which would be new for you -- I'm not going to feel particularly worried here if I don't have the last word.

@%<

anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said...

[[So the Anonymous Amateur Rhetoritician Hour continues.]]

Mr. Gehrig's skill in empty rhetoric makes me think that he is rather a professional one.

[[Did I say all of Lipstadt's critics were right-wing loons and deniers? Nope. Never once. The anonym says I did.]]

I see Mr. Gehrig continues his pattern of lies and distortions. I dare him to cite the instance in which I said anything about "right-wing loons" in the above context.

[[Well, okay, did by implication. Well, okay okay, did by potential implication of the "if you mention a green crayon you're actually by implication denying the existence of red crayons" variety.]]

In cryon terms Mr. Gehrig's exchange with me can be formulated thus:

==========

Me: Lipstadt uses red crayon!

Mr. Gehrig: It's funny to see some people complain about her use of red crayon when they are ignoring Irving's use of green crayon.

Me: I am not ignoring that. I agree that Irving's use of green crayon is evil. But by your statement about "some people" ignoring Irving's evil use of green crayon you implied that any person making such a comment is pro-Irving or even that they are green-crayon-users themselves, because otherwise you wouldn't be dragging Irving and his green crayon into this absolutely unrelated manner!

This was a generic criticism, unrelated to Irving; the criticism that ANY critic of Lipstadt could make, so this automatically implies that all critics of Lipstadt are either Irving's supporters or green-crayon-lovers.

Mr. Gehrig: Lies, ALL LIES!!!

==========

[[In fact, in this thread I've explicitly given not one but two counter-examples of left-wing loons who've attacked her, which the anonym claims merely proves that I've somehow contradicted a statement that I actually never made in the first place.]]

I demonstrated that the claim has been made. Mr. Gehrig has never addressed that demonstration.

[[Green crayon. Oh, darn it, there I go denying by implication the existence of red crayons again.]]

Mr. Gehrig seems to have poor logic. Assuming that was not a lame attempt at being humorous.

[[At any rate, unless you can come up with something new -- like being logically effective, which would be new for you -- I'm not going to feel particularly worried here if I don't have the last word.]]

Well, since I am the one here making logical arguments (never addressed by Mr. Gehrig), I'm quite content to let the readers decide who is correct. But Mr. Gehrig is just too funny not to reply to him.