The author threatens to publicize her email to millions of people, unless I apologize to Arthur Butz of Northwestern among others. I thought I would help her out by posting it here.
Actually, two things deserve comment. Even I, who am rarely surprised by these things, find myself a bit gob smacked at the correspondent's use of the murder of Ilan Halimi as proof of the world's awakening against the Jews.
In fact, I would have assumed that even virulent antisemites would try to distance themselves from this terribly gruesome act. It reveals a side of the antisemites that does their efforts no good.
And secondly, please note, that for someone who declares herself to not be an antisemite, she hardly misses any of the antisemitic canards.
Clearly not one of the sharper knives in the drawer.....
Dear Ms. Lipstadt,[In a fashion that is typical of the people who send these kinds of attacks, the whole email was one long paragraph. I broke it down into shorter ones. I figured the stuff is hard enough to read as is... why make it any harder for the readers of this blog. Other than that, it is precisely as I received it.]
I am appauled at your disgusting and one-sided attack of Dr. Arthur Butz at Northwestern University on FOX News. Have you no shame!! Although I am not anti-semitic, your Jewish greed is overbearing and crippling. The world is beginning to see the collective Jewish attempt to control the world economy and world media.
In fact, the recent arrest of Dr. Irving in Austria shows that European Jews are scared.
Another example: the recent killing of the French Jew raises interesting questions. There is no doubt that the world is beginning to feel the oppression of Jewish greed.
Why have attacks on Jews been increasing in Europe and Russia? Why is the Jewish media pressuring the arrest of people speaking out against the extent of the Holocaust? Why have the Jews written all major history books for! our young children to become indoctrinated with? Why have thousands of Palestians been slaughtered yet Jews will not accept the Palestian holocaust? Two-faced?
Why have the Jews created laws making freedom of speech a crime? Is it merely chance? Fortunately, you know the answer. Please call up Dr. Butz and extend your deepest apology!!
Please call Mr. O'Reilly and extend your apology!! Please write a letter to all students, faculty and Americans extending your apology!! Remember what you say... those who forget history are bound to repeat it.
Have you no intellect? The world Jews are doing exactly what the Romans did 2,000 years ago: they got arrogant, stupid and overextended their luck. By the end of the Roman empire, they had more enemies than allies. STOP your exaggeration of the Holocaust to simply get more $$$.
The world is catching on sister!! I ! have a feeling that you will probably not extend you apologies to the above mentioned individuals. Thus, let me do it for you. As you know, the internet is a beautiful thing. I will extend this e-mail to your president and faculty, to individuals of interest, to hundreds on my e-mail address list and have them send it to thousands more. Hopefully, within 5 days tens of thousands will read this e-mail. Good day...
33 comments:
Interesting that it is a woman. My impression is that most of these wirdo are men but I guess that there are sick women, too.
To "Raw Data:" Yes, it is interesting that it is a woman, but there are a number of visibl ewomen in the neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic movement, which otherwise treats women as second-class citizens.
The most visible is April Gaede, whose 13-year-old twin daughters, Lynx and Lamb, perform as "Prussian Blue," singing a form of neo-Nazi music, with songs about the white race, hailing Rudolf Hess as a martyr. The group has been ripped by anti-Nazi activists and music critics.
Ms. Gaede periodically turns up on The History Channel discussion forums, spouting the usual rhetoric, until she is kicked off.
I use her as an example. The Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report" ran an article a few years back (available on their web site) about the increasing number of women in the neo-Nazi movement. A more recent article is an interview with a female skinhead who came out of the movement (and the closet) after a jail term for a racially-based armed robbery.
Sad but true.
Well, I read this interesting missive.
It's not often that a person brags about how stupid they are, and how they are determined to share their ignorance with the rest of the world.
This woman doesn't realize that she's about to become a laughingstock on a titanic scale...assuming anyone wades through her single paragraph.
So a brutal murder is justified by "the oppression of Jewish greed." She should share those views with the French prosecutor and the family of Ilan Halimi. I doubt she has the courage to do so.
I wonder who the "individuals of interest" are?
I like how she starts off saying she's not an anti-Semite, then slams Jews individually and collectively. One of the interesting things I read in the Goldensohn interviews of Nuremberg war criminals was how all these top Nazis all had a "pet Jew" they tried to save, or were not themselves anti-Semitic. They were all trying to deal with the "big problem" of Jewish control of everything from history textbooks to the stock exchanges.
I wish we did have that control. It would make my life a lot easier. My wife and I would be back in New Zealand now.
This woman says "Have you no intellect?" That's pretty hilarious, coming from a woman who can neither spell nor use punctuation nor organize an essay...addressed to a Ph.D. holding university professor.
One thing...I'm not thrilled with that "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" line.
Last year, a neo-Nazi asked a question on THC about the Wannsee Protocol. I didn't realize he was a neo-Nazi, I just thought he was a 15-year-old kid seeking answers. I gave the guy my usual comprehensive answer.
He returned with a nasty personal attack on my writing ability, saying that I needed to get hold of a book on grammar and punctuation, and run my work through "the fog checker," to give my editors less stress, and make my work go "smoooother."
He also said that I was "no writer," and "not the sharpest knife in the drawer."
Having done all that, he told me that if I stuck to facts and figures and avoided ad hominem attacks, we could have a nice little debate about the Holocaust.
Naturally, I refused, but I did point out to him that I had a Master's Degree in Creative Writing and many published articles to my credit. I asked him to delineate the problems in my writing, to at least educate other members of the group, or better yet, to my MFA instructors and editors, so they could explain it to me, since I wasn't "the sharpest knife in the drawer." He didn't, of course.
But the phraseology of the attacks still irritates me. One of the problems of having low self-esteem, I guess.
Personal attacks are where Holocaust deniers go when they can't face the truth.
Did you let this fool know that you were assisting her in her cause of publicizing her e-mail, and thus supporting her right to free speech? I think she should know that she now has a huge audience laughing at her.
Well, she's right about one thing. The internet is a beautiful thing. It makes people who would only be laughed at by a few folks in their community objects of international derision.
You are right, Dave. I should have omitted the comment about the "sharpest knives..." It really was unnecessary as that was evident from the letter and people could draw their own conclusions.
Thanks for pointing that out.
You couldn't possibly be "cherry picking" to give the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is low IQ white trash? It seems to me that your more intelligent opponents are all facing lengthy jail sentences.
No I am not cherry picking.
As for my so-called intelligent opponents....
Someone who was so intelligent would not have gone to a country where he knew there was a warrant for his arrest, publicly announced that he was coming, and then, after being arrested, told the court that he had not been a denier since the early 1990s when there was reams of evidence to the contrary.
Someone who was so intelligent would not have started a case which he [should have] known he was going to lose because he had lied and manipulated the evidence [as three different courts -- not including the Austrian] declared.
If he was so intelligent he should have known that once we followed his footnotes, his house of cards would collpase.
And so it has.
Nope, doesn't strike as too intelligent a modus operandi.
So anyone who dares to question the status quo is by definition a fool? If only Galileo had realised that.
Irving may well have acted foolishly in visiting Austria, nevertheless, his many books and his solo performance against your very expensive legal team, a performance which I believe won the praise of the judge, indicate that Irving is a very intelligent man.
"Why have the Jews created laws making freedom of speech a crime?"
Fabulous !
(Funny I thought 'they' were all too busy getting gentile blood for Hamantaschen to be making ziono-fascist laws)
Is there any hope for the planet?
Ignorance must be the strongest force on earth
Keep on giving them all hell, DL
To Voxceltica:
I don't think declaring someone to be a Holocaust denier, liar, racist and antisemite and saying that their conclusions are a travesty, unjustified, lies and so forth -- as the judge did -- qualifies as praise.
I would remind Voxceltica that Irving's performance against Deborah's "expensive legal team" drew considerable fire from Judge Gray during the trial and in his judgment.
I suggest you reread the transcripts of the trial. Judge Gray repeatedly had to caution Irving on a variety of subjects, including saying that Irving was not grasping the concept of cross-examination, was delaying the trial needlessly on trivialities, and was submitting pointless material.
His judgment was also devastating, ripping Irving for the deliberate and willful misuse of his intelligence to propagandize for Hitler and the Nazis.
And it's also worth noting that many of the Nazi elite who spouted the Reich's anti-Semitic rhetoric, launched the Holocaust, and led the invasions of Germany's neighbors were also highly intelligent people, doctors, lawyers, Ph.Ds., professors, and field marshals, with considerable education and experience.
The Nazi doctors who performed sadistic "medical experiments" in the concentration camps were also highly intelligent men. So were the chemists who devised Zyklon B, the engineers who designed and built the extermination camps, gas chambers, and crematoria.
Intelligence is a lot, but it's not enough. It must be matched with common sense, empathy, compassion, and a great many other humanities. As an archeologist friend of mine points out, "It takes an engineer or a scientist to tell you how to build an atomic bomb. It takes a historian or a classical scholar to tell you why you don't."
Now, about your comment on Irving's "performance against your very expensive legal team," gratuitous shots are not a mark of intelligence, either.
Neither was Irving's suit. It should be pointed out that Mr. Irving, who regularly haunted Britain's courts, hurling defamation and libel writs at anyone who crossed his path, was bullying Deborah. He was demanding that Deborah's freedom of speech be throttled and the book be pulped. Deborah had no choice but to defend her own freedom of speech from this overgrown schoolyard bully.
Mr. Irving also put together an appalling case. You should read Yale Eideken's analysis of it at The Holocaust History Project web page. Irving's manifold errors in pursuing this action ranged from his theory of the case to his hopeless presentations.
His theory of the case was that Deborah was the "golden-pointed spear" of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Irving's publishing career. However, Irving presented no evidence of any of this.
The only witness he produced without subpoena was a behavioral psychologist from California whose theory was that "Jews stick together." This psychologist gave no direct evidence that there was a conspiracy against Irving. The judge ignored the psychologist's evidence altogether!
Irving's other witnesses were summoned under subpoena, and did him little good. The best they did for him was say that he didn't damage the Goebbels Diary archives in Moscow.
That was a triviality, compared with Richard Evans' devastating report on Irving's appalling historiography on major issues like Kristallnacht, the bombing of Dresden, and Auschwitz.
One of Irving's other subpoenaed witnesses, Sir John Keegan, was also nearly useless. The best he could say was that the original edition of "Hitler's War" was a good book. Then Keegan testified that Irving's notions that Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust "defied common sense." With that glaring admission in hand, Irving tried to impeach his own witness, to little avail.
On the stand, Irving had to recant and admit a variety of mistakes, errors, and that the Nazi persecution of the Jews was systematic. His flacking for Hitler was apparent, as was his racism, anti-Semitism, and links to vicious neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.
Irving is an intelligent man. He should have known that if he continued to bully people, sooner or later, one of his victims would fight back. Anyone who has taken Schoolyard Psych 101 knows that -- eventually the bully meets someone tougher than him, and the bullying career ends in a flurry of fisticuffs.
Irving had spent most of his recent years fighting one legal battle after another. An intelligent man would have known which should have been fought and which should have been avoided.
An intelligent man would have prepared his case better. His complaint was that Deborah's book wrecked his reputation as a historian by painting him as a Holocaust denier. He then attempted to win his case on the basis that the Holocaust never happened. If the Holocaust never happened, then how is Deborah libeling Irving by saying he denies the Holocaust?
An intelligent man would have organized his case better. Irving wanted to demonstrate that a Jewish conspiracy was conniving to destroy his career. Logically, then, he should have subpoenaed publishing executives and leaders of Jewish organizations. He should have grilled them on their activities, and demanded copies of their internal memos and external letters.
An intelligent man would not question the highly-documented mass murder of nearly 11 million people -- Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Slavs -- in the first place.
An intelligent man would not travel in the company of hucksters like Ernst Zundel, con men like David Duke, and poseurs like Germar Rudolph. Nor would an intelligent man accept their invitations and support. (The only intelligence Irving showed was not calling such folks as witnesses on his behalf to prove his theories. He and they would have only looked sillier. Too bad, too)
Finally, the Galileo comparison is a common one, but it's inaccurate. As James Burke notes in his excellent book and BBC series, "The Day the Universe Changed," what got Galileo into trouble was not his theories, but the speed with which he wanted to inflict them on the world.
The church wanted the evolution from Aristotle-based thought to Galilean thought to be accomplished more slowly, so as to avoid stirring up an increasingly politicized Europe, which was already divided by the Reformation. Galileo was going a little too fast for the Papacy's taste. Contrary to the views of many Byrons, a lot of important changes in this world have to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. That's where angry college students fall on their face.
Lastly, it's also common to say that people "laughed" at Galileo, the Wright Brothers, Goddard, Edison, and other scientists and inventors who challenged existing orders and theories.
This is not true. The theories of the above, and those of Robert Koch, Louis Pasteur, the Curies, Einstein, and so on, were demonstrated and proven to other scientists (and engineers, in the case of Edison and Goddard) to their satisfaction. There was not much debate among the scientific communities when they presented their theories.
However, people who were not as conversant with science and engineering (read, newspaper reporters) "laughed" at these new theories, mostly because they simply did not understand them, and, most importantly, made no effort to do so.
This is true today with modern scientists, who have to battle ill-educated reporters and uneducated masses to explain extremely complex theories to the general public.
To the general public, Einstein was that wild-haired guy with the German accent who spouted funny ideas like "E=MC2." He was the poster boy for Hollywood's mad scientist.
But to scientists and students of science, Einstein was not a joke, and he was extremely understandable. So much so that his theories led to the most devastating weapon mankind has ever produced.
The same is true with history. Those who are ignorant will easily be fooled by silly ideas with a patina of scholarship -- like the idea that Columbus proved the world was round, or that the Holocaust never happened.
But those who study the subject with enough energy are able to tell, through the scholarly methods, which ideas are frauds (like Lysenkoism and Holocaust denial) and which are truth.
And that's where intelligence comes into play. You need intelligence to figure all this out.
End of speech. For more on this subject, read Kant.
Hi Dave. I don’t quite see the point of your post. The point that I was making was that DL’s attempt to portray her opponents as low IQ white trash is false. You suggest a conflation of purpose between revisionist historians and Nazis and then proceed to assert that many of the most prominent Nazis were highly intelligent. How does this disprove my assertion that many of the most prominent revisionists, rather than conforming to the stereotype hyped by DL, are highly intelligent individuals? BTW, what have the chemists who invented Zyklon-B got to do with Nazism? Zyklon-B was invented as an insecticide.
I have read enough of the transcripts of the Irving trial to know that it was not the one sided walk- over victory you present it as. To give one random example David Irving’s exposure of Jan Van Pelt as a fraud and a pseudo-architect seemed to be fairly telling.
Your Galileo analogy is interesting. Are you saying that David Irving’s theories are basically right, but the speed with which he wants to inflict them on the world, is problematical? If you aren’t saying this your analogy is bogus.
“The only witness he produced without subpoena was a behavioral psychologist from California whose theory was that "Jews stick together."
Professor Kevin McDonald I pressume? Kevin McDonald has written a trilogy of books about the Jewish diaspora. His first two books were acclaimed by the Jewish establishment and McDonald’s professional credentials were accepted by the literary and intellectual community. After McDonald published his third book, a book which highlighted a conflict of interest between the Jewish community and the Gentile commmunity, McDonald was magically transformed into a “pseudo”-intellectual. Funny how that works isn’t it?
In your discourse on science you seem to be saying that we should draw a distinction between popular perceptions and the perception of experts and that the validity of a new idea should be established through peer review. It seems to me that this is exactly the opposite of the methodology being employed by DL and her fellow travelers. DL benefits from a system in which the established historians refuse to debate with holocaust apostates and in which the holocaust is promoted by direct appeal to what you call the “uneducated masses” through remembrance days, museums and the film and television industries. Madam Currie never faced the prospect of three years in jail for positing the existence of radium did she?
Voxceltica is right when she claims that there are "clever" racists. Or should I say racists who use sophistry and bias in a more consistent way than their less sophisticated comrades?
Voxceltica's blog is a witness that she squarly falls in the category of "clever" racists.
http://voxceltica.livejournal.com/
Point of Information: Zyklon B was developed by a patriotic German Jewish Scientist, who left Germany during the early 1930s (after persecution). Thankfully he died died of natural causes before he had chance to find out how his invention was mis-used.
The German suppliers of the gas to Auschwitz, were sentenced to death at Nuremburg.
Voxceltica, if you want to make scientific comparisons, I would put Holocaust denialists in the same camp as anti-vaccinators - people who want to give the impression of an ongoing debate, when the science/history is clear and try to force the evidence to fit their pre-conceived views.
BTW I find your protestations on this blog transparent in their motives, and not much more intelligent than the email we are all commentating on.
Voxceltica wrote:
To give one random example David Irving’s exposure of Jan Van Pelt as a fraud and a pseudo-architect seemed to be fairly telling.
Show us this "exposure", Vox. Unsupported assertion is worthless.
"Dr." Irving? Now he's a doctor?
Oh, well, I suppose that is an excellent example of the writer's scholarship.
Having waded through all the comments on this, let me add my two cents as to the "low IQ white trash" accusation:
It is quite clear that Prof. Lipstadt is referring to the author of the letter, not to "anyone who disagrees with her," as Voxceltica claims.
It's interesting to me, since this kind of ad hominem is one of the hallmarks of the Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites I come across every day in alt.revisionism.
Comments like "I''m not an anti-Semite, but you jews are all greedy," or "the Holocaust didn't happen and the Jews deserved it," usually follow.
I have participated in alt.revisionism for more than ten years. In its early days, people like Don Black and George Burdi and Dan Gannon showed their ignorance and had the good sense to flee. Over the years, the level of intelligence (as demonstrated by incoherent grammar, punctuation, ability to present cogent arguments, and final descent to abusive name-calling) has plummetted.
On the other hand, Prof. Lipstadt and I have disagreed on more than a few occasions, and I don't think that either of us would call the other "low IQ trailer trash."
I think Forrest Gump said it best, "Stupis is as stupid does." Voxceltica has certainly shown, with comments like " Irving's exposure of Jan Van Pelt..." (can't even bother to get his name right?) and "fellow travellers" a level of intelligence equal to that of the average alt.revisionism denier.
From the trial transcripts:
"Irving: This is a point of some substance, my Lord. We need to know precisely what your qualifications are to offer your expertise to the court.... In Britain, of course, we have the Royal Institute of British Architects. Are you familiar with the fact that it is illegal in England to call yourself an architect unless you are registered with the RIBA?
Van Pelt: That is in most countries like that, yes, I know.
Irving: In Holland, the equivalent is the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten, am I correct?...
Van Pelt: Yes, Bond van Nederlandse Architecten.
Irving: ... Am I right in saying that you are not registered with the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten?
Van Pelt: I have never had any reason to do so since I never studied in an architectural school.
Irving: So you cannot legally pretend to be an architect, if I can put it like that?
Van Pelt: No, I could be prosecuted.
Irving: ... Rather like Mr. Leuchter was prosecuted in Massachusetts for pretending to be an engineer?
Van Pelt: Yes.
Irving: ... In other words, your expertise, as an architect, is the same as Mr. Leuchter's expertise was an engineer"
"It's interesting to me, since this kind of ad hominem is one of the hallmarks of the Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites I come across every day" catamont.
Some examples of catamont not using ad hominems:
"In its early days, people like Don Black and George Burdi and Dan Gannon showed their ignorance"
"Over the years, the level of intelligence has plummetted"
"Stupis is as stupid does"
"a level of intelligence equal to that of the average alt.revisionism denier"
I have decided to shut down the interchange with Voxcelica. Early on I decided that this blog would NOT become a place where deniers could post their drivel and other people would have to spend good time answering them.
As Ecclesiasties said: "There is no end to the matter."
Well on this blog there isan end to the matter.
No more denial claims and counter-claims.
That's too bad, because I've been preparing my detailed and lengthy answer to Voxceltica for the past week and a half.
I will post one part: she misunderstands me on Galileo as she misunderstands everything else I wrote: I am not saying that Irving is comparable to Galileo or that his ideas would take hold if he put them in slowly over time.
I am saying that it is ridiculous for Irving or his ilk to compare themselves to Galileo. They are not bringing new science and understanding to the world. They are merely repackaging old lies and creating new ones in an effort to rehabilitate Adolf Hitler and his ghastly program.
As for "apostasy" concerning Holocaust studies and the refusal of historians to debate deniers: Voxceltica is showing her true colors in her statement. There is as much debate between historians and Holocaust deniers as there is between scientists and people who espouse the idea that the world is flat.
Kevin McDonald is a dud scholar with a dud idea. Academia and tenure enable dud scholars to make good livings from dud ideas.
David Irving made Van Pelt sweat, but did not destroy his evidence. You should read the judge's decision...he supported Van Pelt's positions in their entirety. And Van Pelt is still an architectural historian, while Irving was last seen addressing groups of 12 silent atheists in an Alabama Holiday Inn, before deciding to tweak Austrian law.
And Madame Curie was not suggesting that the most documented and industrialized act of genocide in history was a fraud. Nor was she suggesting that Adolf Hitler and his philosophies were righteous and justified. She merely discovered radium. And there was very little controversy about her work.
To connect Irving with Madame Curie is about as relevant as linking him to Galileo.
Voxceltica's views are just another re-hash of Holocaust deniers trying to create a "debate." They don't want a "debate."
They want a "confrontation," ending with their interlocutor either exploding in rage (and thus being a lousy advertisement for historians) or converting to Holocaust denial.
Holocaust deniers deny. So there is no point to arguing with them... they will deny and ignore any piece of evidence presented to them.
Show them Nazi paperwork, they claim Jewish fraud.
Show them Nazi confessions, they claim they were obtained under duress.
Show them actual camps, they claim they are theme parks, like Disneyland.
Show them survivors and their testimonies, and they claim the survivors are mentally disturbed greedheads.
Show them works by historians, and the deniers will claim they are propaganda from the Jewish conspiracy.
No debate. It's not "apostasy," it's fact.
Fair enough! I respect your decision.
Dave's erudite responses are always a pleasure to read. I wish I could answer the claims of deniers as calmly and intelligently!
Kash
To "Kashesan," thanks for the warm words. The calmness I attribute to Sertralin. The intelligence is debatable...my high school teachers said I was the "stupidest member of my graduating class."
At the risk of sounding like a rolling advertisement for myself, I wrote more about Holocaust deniers and other subjects on my web page at
http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com
I thought this debate had been ended. Has something changed? If the debate hasn't ended I'd be delighted to respond to Dave's "erudite responses". Can the situation be clarified?
Voxceltica: If you want to respond to someone do so directly. I will not let this blog become a place for deniers and those who sympathize with their views to try to prove things which were already proven in court.
When I decided to go back to having people post their comments, I made this fact quite clear: http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_lipstadt_archive.html
To quote one of your own, Holocaust denier Bradley Smith: during the “Lipstadt trial… revisionists … failed n full view of the Western world. http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_lipstadt_archive.html
In other words, the debate over these issues is finished. You had your day[s] in court. You had your appeals. You lost. Decisively. [The judge has nothing good to say about David Irving’s arguments, claims, or contentions regarding the Holocaust. Check it out at www.hdot.org]
Finally, if you are so admiring of David Irving’s views, might I point out that last month in the Austrian court he recanted them and said he now believed there were gas chambers and he had seen documents that convinced him he was wrong.
Thanks Dave, I will check out your website. Didn't mean to cause any further dissent.
(Sertraline! I can vouch for Welbutrin!)
Just checked out your web site Dave.
You are a very good writer -- my compliments sir.
Narukami
Deborah, when you indicated that further discussion of the previous points made was unwelcome you will notice that I graciously accepted your decision. I respect the fact that this is your blog and that you have a right to decide what is and what is not discussed on this blog. I notice however that you have not, in fact, terminated the debate which was unfolding, but have continued to publish comments which are favourable to your position, this is why I have asked for clarification of your position. If the subject is closed please delete the responses made subsequent to your statement in which you clearly indicated a desire to terminate this debate. If you simply wish, as seems obvious, to edit any comments you are troubled by, why can’t you simply state openly that comments will only be published if they are supportive of your position? This might save people who are genuinely troubled by some aspects of your arguments from wasting their time.
Deborah, I'll save you further problems on this issue...I deleted my own post. Sorry about that.
Voxceltica, closed means closed. The extension of this debate on this page is my fault, not Deborah's. And I will not discuss this with you further.
"Voxceltica, closed means closed"
Correct me if I'm wrong Dave, but I think that it was you who failed to observe Deborah's instructions, so I'd cut back on the redundant reminders and pay more attention in future if I was you. You are a few posts too late to seize the moral high ground.
I found this interesting journal. Could it possibly be someone we know? Read for yourself and decide.
http://voxceltica.livejournal.com/
I just wanted to drop a quick note saying I completely understand and support Prof. Lipstadt's refusal to let this blog become a place for flogging yet again the long-dead horses of denier rhetoric. They already had their day in court, and because of it their agenda was exposed, in all its ugliness, for everyone to see. It's useless for them to pretend that they've somehow gotten the cat back into the bag.
Well, we know trolling, we know baiting, and we know Holocaust denial, and "Voxceltica" covers all three subjects.
The most interesting thing about all three behaviors is how they take condescending attitudes and set themselves up as policemen and authorities...on someone else's web page.
And yes, I did read "Voxceltica"'s journal. It also speaks for itself.
Post a Comment