Saturday, December 29, 2007

Another Note to "Bankdraft"

There is a discussion forum which, unlike the Cesspit run by Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, offers open, uncensored debate.

It is called RODOH, which stands for "Real Open Debate on the Holocaust" (the pun on the misnamed "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" is intended).

"Bankdraft" is herewith invited to leave the cozy safety of the Führerbunker and join the discussion on RODOH.

91 comments:

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Well, Mr. "Bankdraft"?

While you make up your mind, enjoy the following thread of the RODOH forum:

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=339.topic

Butch said...

Yeah, kinda funny but it looks more like you and JH having a discussion -- why don't you just call each other?

Let me just ask this? Do you deny that that thread is not laced with personal attacks? There was almost nothing else there.

The entire topic is disingenuous in the first place. My question was why JH didn't answer the perfectly logical question posed by some guy named ngoodgame?

And he didn't, he ignored it 'till I brought it up at CODOH.

Here's ngoodgames question from December 15th, 2007:

Here is my question: Will the contributors here at holocaust controversies join me in condemning these outrageous laws and the governments that enact them?

Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good that they serve.

Thank you very much.

Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:51:00 PM


Note time stamp.

That question went unanswered until December 29th which is when I brought it up at CODOH and then JH started his damage control bit by finally answering the question (sorta):

Hello Cesspit readers! This blog's position regarding laws against denial has been stated on several occasions: we are opposed to such laws. But you and your Cesspit chums such as Wankdraft and Jonnie Hargis would already have known that if you'd been paying attention to previous postings here. A simple search on the search engine would also have made our position clear.

Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:40:00 PM


Note time stamp.

Which prompted me to write this:


JH,

Thank you for that clarification, ‘course ngoodgame is still oblivious to your position. Maybe he'll search the archives to determine it for himself. BTW, I didn't ask the question, NGG did.

I'm just a dumb-ass but had I been you I would have answered something like this:

"Yes NGG, we will join you in such a condemnation. It is indeed unconscionable as we have often stated."

That would actually be a great answer because it would have the added benefit of not addressing the more salient point of his question:

“Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good that they serve.”


[Stop]

If I were JH, I would be embarrassed trying to slide this through ('course I guess no one over there is going to question him).

Anyway, you guys are pretty vulgar and I'm going to decline your invitation, but thanks.

BD

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Yeah, kinda funny but it looks more like you and JH having a discussion -- why don't you just >call each other?

What's that supposed to mean?
First of all, my invitation and JH's clarification are messages with a different subject, and their contents are independent of each other. Second, this blog works as follows, except when it comes to larger articles involving input from various contributors: every contributor posts whatever he feels like posting whenever he feels like doing so.

>Let me just ask this? Do you deny that that thread is not laced with personal attacks? There >was almost nothing else there.

I take you mean this thread: http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=339.topic

Of course there are personal attacks there. When you mouth off about people, you shouldn’t be surprised if they mouth back. As to the "almost nothing else there", that’s silly hyperbole, if you ask me.

>The entire topic is disingenuous in the first place.

What "entire topic" exactly, and how exactly is it "disingenuous"?

>My question was why JH didn't answer the perfectly logical question posed by some guy named >ngoodgame?

How about asking that question to JH himself on the above-mentioned RODOH thread?

>And he didn't, he ignored it 'till I brought it up at CODOH.

How about confronting JH himself with this accusation, whatever relevance it is supposed to have, on the above-mentioned RODOH thread?

>Here's ngoodgames question from December 15th, 2007:

>Here is my question: Will the contributors here at holocaust controversies join me in >condemning these outrageous laws and the governments that enact them?

>Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good >that they serve.

>Thank you very much.

>Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:51:00 PM

>Note time stamp.

>That question went unanswered until December 29th which is when I brought it up at CODOH >and then JH started his damage control bit by finally answering the question (sorta):

>Hello Cesspit readers! This blog's position regarding laws against denial has been stated on >several occasions: we are opposed to such laws. But you and your Cesspit chums such as >Wankdraft and Jonnie Hargis would already have known that if you'd been paying attention to >previous postings here. A simple search on the search engine would also have made our >position clear.

>Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:40:00 PM

>Note time stamp.

Don’t you think it’s a bit idiotic to babble about "damage control" when this blog has made clear its position regarding anti-denial laws in its very opening post?

>Which prompted me to write this:

>JH,

>Thank you for that clarification, ‘course ngoodgame is still oblivious to your position. Maybe he'll >search the archives to determine it for himself. BTW, I didn't ask the question, NGG did.

>I'm just a dumb-ass but had I been you I would have answered something like this:

>"Yes NGG, we will join you in such a condemnation. It is indeed unconscionable as we have >often stated."

>That would actually be a great answer because it would have the added benefit of not >addressing the more salient point of his question:

>“Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the >good that they serve.”

>[Stop]

>If I were JH, I would be embarrassed trying to slide this through ('course I guess no one over >there is going to question him).

Independently of what JH may wish to respond to the above (from what I've seen of him he is very well able to speak for himself), I have a question for you:

Just how does the expression of condemnation that you claim you "would have" provided differ from JH’s statement that HC are opposed to anti-denial laws?

Was it just too matter-of-fact for your taste, did it not contain enough whining?

Or were you expecting something like an offer to hand in a petition or so?

In the latter case, I have a suggestion for you. Some time ago I drafted a petition to the legislator of the German Federal Republic, which I circulated on the RODOH forum for signature. I got several signatures from opponents of "Revisionism", but no "Revisionist" signature except from Scott Smith. The petition is worded as follows:

«Dear Legislator of the German Federal Republic,

We hereby request you to revoke the provisions of the Strafgesetzbuch whereby the praising, playing down or denying of violent crimes committed by the National Socialist regime constitutes a punishable criminal offense, as well as any other provisions whereby the dissemination of untruths in support of an extremist political line may be subject to criminal punishment.

We are of the opinion that such utterances should not be sanctioned by criminal prosecution. As the distinguished legal scholar Mr. Baumann of the Neue Juristische Wochenschrift said in 1994:

"Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muβ für die Leugnung der Scheuβlichkeiten und Verbrechen der jüngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten."

Source of quote:
Brigitte Bailer-Galanda/Wolfgang Benz/Wolfgang Neugebauer (Hrg.), Die Auschwitzleugner, 1996 Elefanten Press, Berlin, page 261.

Translation:

"Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past."

We are of the opinion that, however disgusting and offensive to certain people the utterance of such propagandistic untruths may be, the democratic state of right should rely on prevailing over them on the free marketplace of ideas. The means to keep the discontented in our society from being taken in by extremist hate speech should be education and information, not criminal prosecution.

Sincerely Yours,»


I intend to submit this petition to the competent bodies of the German Federal Republic once I have collected sufficient signatures. So here’s my proposition:

I shall circulate the above text to both "Revisionists" and opponents of "Revisionism" whose e-mail address I know, including you if you give me your e-mail address, asking every addressee to sign and circulate the text in order to obtain further signatures. Anyone receiving a text with, say, more than 100 signatures will be requested to add his own and send the text to my e-mail address. When I have collected a sufficient number of signatures (I welcome your input on what that number should be), I shall send out the petition.

Of course the petition is worded in a manner that may scratch your "Revisionist" ego, but I would be lying if I worded it so as to contain anything other than my firm and honest opinion (you may have noticed that the statement of German legal scholar Baumann quoted in the petition text has been my custom signature on RODOH for quite a while) about "Revisionist" baloney, and besides that’s the only way it stands any chance of getting attention from anyone important in the GFR. I'm positively sure that, if you come along with some crap about legitimate "doubt" and the need to listen to both "sides", they’ll just laugh their heads off and drop it in the rubbish bin.

So, Mr. "Bankdraft", are you interested in going along with my proposition to directly and expressly request the revocation of anti-denial laws from one of the states that applies such laws?

Please let me know as soon as possible.

>Anyway, you guys are pretty vulgar and I'm going to decline your invitation, but thanks.

Sorry, but that smacks of a coward’s lame excuse for shying away from direct confrontation with his opponents on an uncensored discussion forum where he does not enjoy the protection of a friendly moderator. I find it silly beyond expression that someone who doesn’t mind discussing every ugly detail of large-scale mass murder, the nitty-gritty of how people are killed and buried or incinerated, and moreover someone who is prepared to offend others by what amounts to a dishonest defense-attorney stance at best, is such a delicate flower in matters of language. What is more, whether or not you will be subject to personal attacks on RODOH depends entirely on your own behavior. I think your brother-in-spirit "Wahrheitseeker", who has been posting on RODOH for some time and managed to refrain from saturating his arguments with "Revisionist" rhetorical baloney like calling his opponents "brain-dead True Believers" and such, can confirm that he has not felt subject to any "pretty vulgar" attacks.

So I suggest you take another look in the mirror and decide whether you can match your self-respect with your refusal to confront critics of your "Revisionist" beliefs on the RODOH forum, instead of mouthing off about them on "Hannover" Hargis' warm and cozy Führerbunker, to which this writer and at least one other person you have been attacking have no access.

Please report back when you have thought this over.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

PS

While you make up your mind about my petition proposal and about posting on RODOH, continue enjoying the thread

http://p102.ezboard.com/Wankdraft/frodohforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=339.topic

Especially the latest comment from "Wahrheitseeker", which you may wish to share with your fellow CODOH posters.

Butch said...

JH,

Again, thank you for the invitation but I am not interested in participating in your forum. I will however join you in signing the petition as will, I believe, the other regulars at CODOH. I will get back to you will appropriate contact information soon.

Might I suggest you post the petition at your blog and let people sign it there as well? I can’t speak for Bradley Smith but I don’t think he would have any problem posting the petition at CODOH either, so when it shows up at HC, I will point it out to CODOH members (and post a copy at CODOH) and let them decide for themselves if they wish to participate -- who says there’s no middle ground?

The primary reason I am declining your invitation is that I don’t think you have any genuine interest in any debate or information sharing, especially if the thread that you have been suggesting to me is representative of the caliber of exchange I can expect. I think the fencing douche-bags that you use as your logo is probably apropos of what goes on at RODOH.

This is probably a waste of time but here goes: You referred me to a RODOH thread started by JH which begins like this: Some idiot called Bankdraft claims that the HC forum has not made its position on denial laws clear enough.

That’s simply untrue. False. I never said that. I merely pointed out that JH abandoned a question made by another commenter (and he did), and left the poor bastard hanging for two weeks until I made a comment about it at CODOH and then all hell broke loose. Surely, then, you must see the disingenuousness of the thread as a whole? Have you even read the original exchange at your own HC blog? So you can see (or could see if you’d read the posts) that I didn’t “mouth-off”, what I said was spot-on.

You say you have no reason to restate your position on holocaust denial laws since it is mentioned in the original post (made in 2006 and therefore not likely to be discovered by the casual reader) yet there seems to be plenty of time to vilify me by making me the focus at HC and, quite frankly, blatantly lying (JH’s ROHOH post) about what I am supposed to have said. I understand that you are not responsible for what JH posts but shouldn’t you at least read the original exchange?

OK, quid pro quo, what another poster at CODOH said about your phone call to his hotel in Germany and subsequent email to “someone’s” place of employment appears to be, shall we say, an embellishment. But, I’m not responsible for what other posters say (just as you aren’t responsible for what JH says). The other poster said it, I had no way of checking it, so I called it “over-the-top”.

As an aside, I once made some comments at HC which Sergey apparently didn’t care for and he did indeed post my IP address and what any other information he could obtain. In fact it was my exchange with Sergey that prompted you guys to disallow anonymous comments at HC (or at least the new policy was implemented immediately following that). So, your phone call and letter seemed consistent with HC/RODOH tactics.

I have agreed that an embellishment was made by another poster at CODOH, still though, your email did refer to this “someone” with the de-facto pejorative “holocaust denier” (you might as well have said anti-semite) and you did contact his place of employment which, to me, is a bit over-the-top. Had your intention simply been to verify his identity or open a dialogue, you would have left “holocaust denier” out of your original email. No, it was meant to besmirch and harm this “someone”.

It’s almost child-like to “invite” me to participate at RODOH -- and then call me a coward when I won’t -- when your real intention is so transparent. I have taken the time to respond to you in a more or less civil way whereas your responses (at HC/RODOH) are word-parsing what I say and therefore takes no real thought or time.

I’m sure I’ll comment again at HC but this particular topic is a waste of time; fencing douche-bags if you will. I am extremely busy at present and will not be responding to any follow-on comments you make at HC or RHODH but I will keep an eye out for the petition.

B

Jonathan Harrison said...

>>That’s simply untrue. False. I never said that. I merely pointed out that JH abandoned a question made by another commenter

The question that I supposedly "abandoned" was clearly an act of trolling, as it was asking HC to restate a position that was already clearly its policy. And the question was posed in an obviously trolling way, namely:

>>Will the contributors here at holocaust controversies join me in condemning these outrageous laws and the governments that enact them?

The obvious answer is that we have no need to do so as our policy has already been stated many times on here. I strongly suspected, and still do, that the questioner already knew this. It was thus a matter of not feeding the troll.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>JH,

I’m not JH.

>Again, thank you for the invitation but I am not interested in participating in your forum.

What a shame, it would have been fun.

>I will however join you in signing the petition as will, I believe, the other regulars at CODOH.

I woudn't expect too much from them if I were you.

>I will get back to you will appropriate contact information soon.

I’m looking forward to it.

>Might I suggest you post the petition at your blog and let people sign it there as well?

That’s an idea.

>I can’t speak for Bradley Smith but I don’t think he would have any problem posting the >petition at CODOH either, so when it shows up at HC, I will point it out to CODOH members >(and post a copy at CODOH) and let them decide for themselves if they wish to participate -- >who says there’s no middle ground?

I could insist on my copyright over the petition text, but I’ll be too curious to see the howling that is likely to break loose when the petition text is pointed out at and copied onto a CODOH thread.
:-)

>The primary reason I am declining your invitation is that I don’t think you have any genuine >interest in any debate or information sharing, especially if the thread that you have been >suggesting to me is representative of the caliber of exchange I can expect.

It isn’t. If you want to know what caliber of exchange you can expect, go to the Holocaust & Genocide Discussion and Debate Section under

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm10,

where material topics are discussed. The Memory Hole is just for pointing out the instructive moderating (read: censorship) practices on the CODOH board as well as other funny things that go on there.

>I think the fencing douche-bags that you use as your logo is probably apropos of what goes on >at RODOH.

What goes on at RODOH is open debate between proponents of irreconcilable positions, which is what makes it interesting and educative. If challenges to your beliefs and claims frighten you and you’d rather "debate" where you can look forward to backslapping only, it’s no place for you, of course. In that case, better stay inside the cozy CODOH Führerbunker.

>This is probably a waste of time but here goes: You referred me to a RODOH thread started by >JH which begins like this: Some idiot called Bankdraft claims that the HC forum has not made >its position on denial laws clear enough.

>That’s simply untrue. False. I never said that. I merely pointed out that JH abandoned a >question made by another commenter (and he did), and left the poor bastard hanging for two >weeks until I made a comment about it at CODOH and then all hell broke loose.

I guess that was because your pointing out on CODOH that JH had not responded to the other commenter contained at least an insinuation that JH, or he and the other members of HC, had not made their position on denial laws clear enough. An insinuation is an implicit claim.

>Surely, then, you must see the disingenuousness of the thread as a whole?

I wouldn’t call JH’s OP claim disingenuous, and the thread as a whole consists of a lot more than that, which you apparently haven’t read and which actually was the reason why I pointed out the thread to you. My own posts on that thread, which are not related to the denial laws issue, are just one example.

>Have you even read the original exchange at your own HC blog? So you can see (or could see if >you’d read the posts) that I didn’t “mouth-off”, what I said was spot-on.

I don’t think it was, for the reasons explained above. And the thread does not just consist of JH’s OP, as I said before. Actually discussion moved away from that OP’s subject starting with my post following that OP.

>You say you have no reason to restate your position on holocaust denial laws since it is >mentioned in the original post (made in 2006 and therefore not likely to be discovered by the >casual reader)

No, I said it’s a bit idiotic to babble about "damage control", as you did, when this blog has made clear its position regarding anti-denial laws in its very opening post (which, incidentally, is easy to discover for anyone who looks up HC’s essential postings under
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html
- it’s right on top there). Don’t misrepresent my words, OK?

>yet there seems to be plenty of time to vilify me by making me the focus at HC and,

Time is not the issue, and you seem to be something of a crybaby.

>quite frankly, blatantly lying (JH’s ROHOH post) about what I am supposed to have said.

No, JH was quite right about what you clearly insinuated.

>I understand that you are not responsible for what JH posts but shouldn’t you at least read the >original exchange?

For the purpose of pointing you to a thread mostly unrelated to that "original exchange"? I don’t think so.

>OK, quid pro quo, what another poster at CODOH said about your phone call to his hotel in >Germany and subsequent email to “someone’s” place of employment appears to be, shall we >say, an embellishment. But, I’m not responsible for what other posters say (just as you aren’t >responsible for what JH says). The other poster said it, I had no way of checking it, so I called >it “over-the-top”.

I don’t remember having taken you to task for having nodded to jnovitz’s "embellishment", which makes your protest quite superfluous. Maybe you should read my post # 9820 on that thread with more attention.

>As an aside, I once made some comments at HC which Sergey apparently didn’t care for and he >did indeed post my IP address and what any other information he could obtain.

I’m sure you can easily find the thread where that happened and point it out. So please do that.

>In fact it was my exchange with Sergey that prompted you guys to disallow anonymous >comments at HC (or at least the new policy was implemented immediately following that). So, >your phone call and letter seemed consistent with HC/RODOH tactics.

What "HC/RODOH tactics" are you referring to? Disallowing anonymous trolling and insisting that who throws intellectual garbage around at least has the courtesy of doing so under a consistent alias?

>I have agreed that an embellishment was made by another poster at CODOH, still though, your >email did refer to this “someone” with the de-facto pejorative “holocaust denier” (you might as >well have said anti-semite)

Both terms are as matter-of-fact as calling a spade a spade, in what concerns that "someone".

>and you did contact his place of employment which, to me, is a bit over-the-top.

I didn’t contact the fellow’s place of employment. I contacted the place of employment of someone the fellow had falsely claimed to be, in the firm conviction that his claim was false and in order to inform the one he was impersonating that some less-than-recommendable character was impersonating him on an internet forum. The impersonated gentleman was grateful for the information, as I would have been in his place, and took advantage of it to publicly clear himself of any suspicion that he was identical with the impersonator.

>Had your intention simply been to verify his identity or open a dialogue, you would have left >“holocaust denier” out of your original email. No, it was meant to besmirch and harm this >“someone”.

No, it was meant to obtain evidence to the falsity of that "someone"’s identity claim and thus expose him as a liar. And it was also meant to serve the purpose described above.

>It’s almost child-like to “invite” me to participate at RODOH -- and then call me a coward when >I won’t -- when your real intention is so transparent.

What exactly is my "real intention" supposed to be, my friend? Don’t be shy to spell it out. I’m curious.

>I have taken the time to respond to you in a more or less civil way whereas your responses (at >HC/RODOH) are word-parsing what I say and therefore takes no real thought or time.

Let’s look at the example of your "civility" that brought about our acquaintance. It is quoted in my post # 9798 on the thread http://p102.ezboard.com/Wankdraft/frodohforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=339.topic :

«At least Harrison is not an overt liar like the rest of those goofballs.»

So calling people you haven't talked to and whose arguments you have not addressed (if, as it seems, your statement referred to the members of HC other than JH, that would be Nick Terry, Andrew Mathis and me, assuming your claim of having chatted with Sergey Romanov is accurate) liars and "goofballs" is supposed to be an example of your civility?
That’s good to know.

Ah, and I hope you don’t think calling my arguments funny names like "word-parsing" makes them any less pertinent. It would disappoint me as concerns your intelligence if you did.

>I’m sure I’ll comment again at HC but this particular topic is a waste of time; fencing douche->bags if you will.

Yeah, it sure is a waste of time on your part to try convincing me that the reasons you give for not debating on RODOH are anything other than lame pretexts.

>I am extremely busy at present and will not be responding to any follow-on comments you >make at HC or RHODH

RODOH. :-)

>but I will keep an eye out for the petition.

OK.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Yesterday at 2.13pm on the Cesspit, Mr Bankdraft referred to my HC colleagues as "spooky, even dangerous, people. There is no question that they are vindictive, obsessional, and vile." He then had the cheek to come on here today and play the "civility" card, as if he were a different person who had never posted those words. Self-awareness does not appear to be one of his gifts.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

PS to my comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 11:02:00 PM:

A blog post with the petition text, as per my comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57:00 AM, will go up next weekend.

The reason why it doesn’t go up today is that I would like to monitor the follow-up to such post (namely the whining it is likely to arouse on the Cesspit) from day one and might have no time to do so next week due to a business trip outside the country.

The above is just in case Mr. Bankdraft should feel like indulging in conjectures that I have "backed off" or so from my proposal.

Butch said...

Roberto,

Thank you for keeping me informed. I will loook for it next weekend -- it seems a step in the right direction.

Regards,

B

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>it seems a step in the right direction

… which I hope more "Revisionists" will be willing to accompany this time.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Hey Butch,

So you were too busy to continue the discussion here but not too busy to mouth off about me on the Cesspit, where I’m not allowed to post?

Ts, ts, ts …

Read my RODOH post # 9824 under

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=339.topic&start=26&stop=34

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

… and the subsequent post by "Wahrheitseeker". :-)

ngoodgame said...

I honestly was not aware of this site's position on denial laws. I'm sure that I could have researched it on my own but I was fairly certain/hopeful I could get somebody to defend such laws. That is why I spent so many words setting up my question. Anyway, I'm sorry for any problems that my question has caused but I agree with Butch that all that was needed was to join me in condemning such laws, and, if you felt it necessary, chastising my lack of knowledge about the site's stated policy.

To quickly sum up my feeling on holocaust denial, I don’t understand how the moderators here can pretend that there is no argument. Someone posted to me that revisionism is a faith position. The MO here seems to be to label anyone who disagrees with the official narrative either a racist, lunatic, or ignoramus. I conceded long ago that I may be the latter, but per our discussions I have not been proven so. I have not seen a single piece of evidence supporting the official narrative that has not been reasonably refuted by revisionism. Please demonstrate that I am an ignoramus so I can change my mind and start denouncing the racist lunatics with you.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

ngoodgame,

You caused no problems but provided me with an opportunity, thanks.

Your "show me I'm wrong" - stance is as old as the hills. I suggest you register on the RODOH forum and join the Holocaust & Genocide discussion there. Then we'll see what's behind your big words.

I look forward to finding you there when I'm back.

ngoodgame said...

Roberto,

My “show me I’m wrong stance” may be as old as the hills but this implies that defenders of the official narrative have yet to demonstrate with irrefutable evidence why revisionism is wrong. If flat earthers demand to be shown where they’re wrong, I could easily compile a long list including satellite photos, maps, etc. I would do more than simply explain that “your stance is old”. In fact, if I engaged with flat earthers frequently, I would gather maybe the top 5 pieces of evidence that the earth is in fact round. Each time a flat earther asked me to prove them wrong, I would cut and paste my arguments and say there, refute this. If they had evidence to the contrary, I would weigh it accordingly and would not feel a need to misrepresent it to the general public. While establishing my argument, there would be no need to present false evidence or use expert witnesses that were documented liars as this would undermine my position. Nor would I have to engage in name calling or questioning the motives of those who continued to believe in a flat earth. True, there was a time when those who claimed the earth was “citrus shaped” were imprisoned or tortured, but again, if we were to do this to flat earthers today, it would probably just ad legitimacy to their position.

Again, it is my contention that there is no evidence to support the official narrative that has not been reasonably refuted by revisionism. Instead, when one suggests that perhaps there are problems with the official narrative, they are maligned as lunatics or racists, marginalized, and in many places prosecuted (treatment not unlike that given to those who once suggested the earth was round). I am pleased to learn that the moderators here have a stated policy against the latter, but undoubtedly they sanction and engage in the former.

I will be happy to join in discussions at the RODOH forum. Do they have experts there that are privy to evidence not available to the experts here at HC?

Jonathan Harrison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Harrison said...

>> In fact, if I engaged with flat earthers frequently, I would gather maybe the top 5 pieces of evidence that the earth is in fact round.

That would be a dumb move, because you'd have thousands of pieces of evidence at your disposal. Restricting yourself to 5 pieces would be playing the Flat Earther at his own cherrypicking game.

Historians don't operate that way. Hilberg's 1961 study and Browning's more recent one both refer to thousands of primary sources, not just five. Deniers have to refute each and every one of those sources, not just cherrypick two or three and spin a "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" fallacy from them. If you can point me to a denier who has gone through all these sources, or even the majority of them, and made an honest attempt to rebut them, I'm all ears.

Butch said...

Roberto,

I don’t know if you’re serious or just enjoy the banter... I suspect it’s the latter.

In any event, I thought any initial exchange with you was fruitless and therefore I chose not to engage you and told you as much from the beginning.

I AM busy which means I necessarily have to pick and choose the way in which I spend my time. Am I required to clear it through you every time I make love to my wife? I have friends at CODOH, people I regularly correspond with and share information (both via open forum and PM). If I chose to communicate with them, I’ll do it without your permission.

You can spin your email correspondence anyway you wish but you contacted “someone’s” place of employment with the specific intent of harming him -- if you continue to deny that, then probably there is no middle ground.

I’m not calling you a liar, and of course I have no way of knowing what goes on inside your mind but do think I am just plain stupid? You used “holocaust denier” in the body of the email. If you were serious, you would have contacted the office and inquired if “someone” was employed there and how you might contact him?

Last point, I did not mean to suggest that I had initiated the “holocaust denial law petition”. That thought never even remotely entered my mind. I gave you (or thought I did) full credit for that and I do think it a step in the right direction and hope you follow up on it.

I will allow that the phraseology “RM has agreed to post a petition... “ could be interpreted that it was my idea but it wasn’t and I never meant to suggest it was. Also, realize that the particular correspondence that you picked apart was not directed you -- it was directed to another individual with whom I maintain an extensive correspondence. All the pertinent information -- including you idea of a petition -- is clearly documented for anyone who really gives a fuck. Why do you assume that I am automatically being duplicitous? Why?

I even said in my CODOH post that RODOH did not appear to be the propaganda mouthpiece that I initially thought it was. I may well post there. Come on man, were both grown men, let’s drop this “gossip column” dialogue. Post he petition, I’ll sign it and suggest to CODOH members to sign it as well.

Finally “ngoodgame” has become something of a pawn in this thing but it is clear he asked a perfectly reasonable and logical question (concerning denial laws) and he was ignored until I pointed it out. After that JH made a couple of impotently weak -- even bizarre -- efforts at defending himself (which I rightfully referred to “damage control”). He (ngoodgame) is still out there (and apparently following the action) and is available for “recruitment”. If you maintain your school-girl tactics, he’s going to naturally dig deeper into the controversy and if he does that, he will come away as a doubter or skeptic.

B

Butch said...

RM,

If I hadn't had a couple of beer, you probably could not have dragged me in to this but let me ask you what the fuck do you think I meant when when I said:

RM has agreed to draft and post a renunciation of holocaust denial laws petition at HC (and I’m assuming at R.O.D.O.H. as well) and when he does, I agreed to post a copy at CODOH.

How is it even remotely possible that you twist that into "my baby?" You wonder why I call you disingenuous.

The most bizarre thing about this exchange is that you are actually going to defend himself. Do you really want to end up in the same catagory as JH?

B

P.S. You do get points for robbing me of 20 minutes.

ngoodgame said...

JH,

Well, I ask for one piece of evidence which has not been reasonably refuted, which supports the position that millions of Jews died in gas chambers during WWII. Instead of listing one, you insist that I provide a revisionist who has made an honest attempt to rebut at least a majority of the thousands of pieces of evidence supporting the above position.

It seems as if you sensed a trap and chose to evade it. Perhaps you missed my point in the previous post. If I engaged with flat earthers on a regular basis and was familiar with their argument and its strengths and weaknesses. I would have memorized a handful of the best arguments that I could rattle off at the drop of a hat. I wouldn’t need to do any research; I would just list the top 5-10 reasons that convince me personally that their position is incorrect. This would in no way limit me to these 5-10 pieces of evidence as I would have thousands of others I could fall back on. However, I must say that if the top 5-10 pieces of evidence that I offered were reasonably rebutted, I would have to begin to reevaluate my position.

You chose not to offer any evidence and claimed it would “be playing the Flat Earther at his own cherrypicking game”. Further down you say that revisionists have to refute each of thousands of pieces of evidence and “not just cherrypick two or three and spin a "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" fallacy from them”.

The problem with your above statements is that you make it sound as if the flat earther or the revisionist is cherrypicking the evidence. In the previous post, I clearly asked you to select the most powerful piece of evidence which supports your position. Again, this in no way limits you to just that piece of evidence. I know you don’t have time to write me a book so I thought you could just pull out your big guns and briefly explain to me why my position is untenable.

Now I understand that you are trying to express that a single piece of evidence pulled from the context of thousands of others which supposedly corroborate it will drastically reduce the power of that piece of evidence. I understand and appreciate your perspective on this. Nevertheless the same would be true of me debating with a flat earther yet I wouldn’t hesitate to offer my best evidence. It would not be foolish, as you claim, for two reasons. First, it would encourage debate and I would at least have the satisfaction that I gave my best effort to enlighten the flat earther. Secondly, truth is on my side and therefore, there is no way that a flat earther could ever reach the threshold of offering a reasonable rebuttal to the pieces of evidence I offered even if they are taken out of the context of thousands of other pieces of supporting evidence.

As for your counter proposal, which I believe was offered in order to discourage debate. First, I would have to have a working knowledge of the “thousands of pieces of evidence” then I would need to be familiar enough with a revisionist and his work to know that he addressed at least more than half of these pieces of evidence. Finally, I would have to be sure that this revisionist realized the subjective bar of “honesty” you set forth. All this would be next to impossible as I’m sure was your intent.

Jonathan Harrison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Harrison said...

>> First, I would have to have a working knowledge of the “thousands of pieces of evidence”

Correct. Because the claim in your original post was that revisionists have refuted ALL these pieces of evidence: "it is my contention that there is no evidence to support the official narrative that has not been reasonably refuted by revisionism."

YOU were the person who set that bar, so the onus is on you to go through every piece of evidence and prove that it has been refuted. If you're now admitting that you're not familiar with much of this evidence, then clearly your original claim was false, and was a lame attempt at trolling.

Butch said...

To whom it may concern:

I do not know ngoodgame. I have never meet the man (or woman), I have never corresponded with him, and he has never answered (or even acknowledged) me in any way what-so-ever, even when I specifically quoted him or solicited a response from him.

It is my belief that he has taken this stance so that he can't be accused of associating with revisionists and thereby prejudicing his position.

You maintain a Blog called "Holocaust Controversies" and then double-talk everyone who shows up and does not toe the party line. What it seems to me that you have on your hand is an intelligent -- certainly logical -- man who has legitimate questions concerning the holocaust so he, rightfully, goes to a place called HC and what does he get?

Statements like this:

"... so the onus is on you to go through every piece of evidence and prove that it has been refuted."

You (JH) are aware that "every" is a superlative, are you not? And why do I get the feeling that if even he did go through "every" piece of evidence, it still wouldn't be good enough.

You tie the poor bastard up in linguistic knots rather than answer a simple fucking question.

Your "troll" defense is getting pretty impotent. Just to refresh your memory, you abandoned his earlier suggestion concerning a denubnciation of denial laws -- yet you were willing to spend hours defenfing your positinon -- until I pointed it out, then you used the well-worn "troll" defense.

I have an idea, why don't you answer his fucking questions?

B

Jonathan Harrison said...

>> You (JH) are aware that "every" is a superlative, are you not?

Why would a serious question contain a superlative? Why would someone receiving a question containing an unsustainable claim regard it as anything other than a troll exercise?

Butch said...

First ask Dr. Mathis (sp?) the linguistic definition of surperlative, then you will see the ridiculousness of asking NGG to "... go through every piece of evidence and prove that it has been refuted."

After that explain to me why you first called his (NGG) line of reasoning: "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", then later posted at RODOH (after I pointed out that you had abandoned the question) that the question had already been answered so needed further explanation, and now it appears that you have definitively settled on the troll defense.

If you keep this up they are going to have to start monitoring your posts.

All is not lost though! Anyone reading the full thread will see what an imbecile you are and the likelihood is they will extrapolate that thinking to the rest of the team. 'Course the bad news is that no one reads the posts -- except me and I already know you're an imbecile.

Answer his questions you pusillanimous fuck.

Butch said...

CORRECTION:

After that explain to me why you first called his (NGG) line of reasoning: "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", then later posted at RODOH (after I pointed out that you had abandoned the question) that the question had already been answered so needed no further explanation, and now it appears that you have definitively settled on the troll defense.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Butch, anyone reading your posts can see that you're a whining idiot. Now please fuck off and go play with your toys. Your abusive posts will get no further responses from me.

Butch said...

Bravo!

Perfect ending to your pathetic attempt as erudition. "Fuck off" is always a good retort.

I'm sure ngoodgame agrees with you completely.

B

Jonathan Harrison said...

Butch wanted to be spoonfed like a child and then became abusive when this was not forthcoming, then predictably started frothing when handed back his own "fuck off". Very childish.

For any adults reading this (i.e. not Butch), I apologise for Butch's psychotic imbecility, and his inability to understand that when I initially accuse someone of using a "falsus in uno" argument, I am, ipso facto, accusing someone of being a troll. It is only when they refuse to take the hint that I have to be more explicit.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Readers may also judge NG and Butch's sincerity by the fact that neither has, as yet, shown up on RODOH (which, unlike HC, is equipped with the full range of HTML functions required for a debating forum), despite Roberto having extended his invitation ten days ago.

So, was their intention to debate or to troll by making claims of a "falsus in uno" nature that they had no intention of trying to substantiate through proper academic presentation? The answer is obvious to all but the willfully blind.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

ngoodgame
>Roberto,

>My “show me I’m wrong stance” may be as old as the hills but this implies that defenders of the >official narrative have yet to demonstrate with irrefutable evidence why revisionism is wrong.

No, it only implies that "Revisionists" are true believers who repeat their articles of faith no matter how often and how thoroughly the same are shredded by conclusive evidence and reasonable arguments. You don’t convince a true believer, all you can do is show others how imbecile the true believer’s convictions are.

ngoodgame
>If flat earthers demand to be shown where they’re wrong, I could easily compile a long list >including satellite photos, maps, etc. I would do more than simply explain that “your stance is >old”. In fact, if I engaged with flat earthers frequently, I would gather maybe the top 5 pieces >of evidence that the earth is in fact round. Each time a flat earther asked me to prove them >wrong, I would cut and paste my arguments and say there, refute this.

If your flat-earthers are as stuck to their articles of faith as "Revisionists" are, they will react to whatever evidence you show them with unsubstantiated claims of manipulation or simply ignore your evidence and persist in their lunacy. This persistence would, by your reasoning, mean that defenders of the official geography have yet to demonstrate with irrefutable evidence why flat-earthers are wrong.

>If they had evidence to the contrary, I would weigh it accordingly and would not feel a need to >misrepresent it to the general public.

Who is supposed to be feeling a need to misrepresent what to the general public?

>While establishing my argument, there would be no need to present false evidence

What "false evidence" exactly did you have in mind?

>or use expert witnesses that were documented liars as this would undermine my position.

What "expert witnesses that were documented liars" are you talking about?

>Nor would I have to engage in name calling or questioning the motives of those who >continued to believe in a flat earth.

Who is supposed to engage in name-calling or question opponents’ motives in lieu of evidence and arguments?

>True, there was a time when those who claimed the earth was “citrus shaped” were imprisoned >or tortured, but again, if we were to do this to flat earthers today, it would probably just ad >legitimacy to their position.

Outlawed bullshit is bullshit nevertheless, so all that outlawed bullshitters can hope for is a semblance of legitimacy in the eyes of an ignorant public. Of course that semblance is reason enough to oppose the outlawing of bullshitters, be they flat-earthers or "Revisionists".

ngoodgame
>Again, it is my contention that there is no evidence to support the official narrative that has not >been reasonably refuted by revisionism.

I have taken note of your contention. Now, how about moving your ass to RODOH (unless I missed something, I haven’t seen you there yet) and showing what, if anything, is behind it?

ngoodgame
>Instead, when one suggests that perhaps there are problems with the official narrative, they >are maligned as lunatics or racists,

I don’t care much about you people’s motivations, but what I have seen of you over the years has led me to conclude that, independently of your motivations, you are either inveterate liars or have a couple of screws loose inside your head. That’s not maligning, but a conclusion derived from observation.

ngoodgame
>marginalized,

Oh, you poor darlings! Do you really think you have a claim to being accepted as equals in discussing history any more than flat-earthers have such claim in discussing geography? Respect is earned, not demanded.

ngoodgame
> and in many places prosecuted (treatment not unlike that given to those who once suggested >the earth was round).

Except that those contested dogmas on the basis of evidence, whereas "Revisionists" do exactly the opposite: they contest evidence on the basis of their dogmas, however hard they try to bolster up their articles of faith with "scientific" arguments.

ngoodgame
>I am pleased to learn that the moderators here have a stated policy against the latter, but >undoubtedly they sanction and engage in the former.

You mean calling a spade a spade and an idiot an idiot? Yeah, that’s permitted here. Live with it.

ngoodgame
>I will be happy to join in discussions at the RODOH forum. Do they have experts there that are >privy to evidence not available to the experts here at HC?

Why don’t you just go there and find out?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Butch
>Roberto,
>I don’t know if you’re serious or just enjoy the banter... I suspect it’s the latter.

I’ll chalk that up to wishful thinking.

Butch
>In any event, I thought any initial exchange with you was fruitless and therefore I chose not to >engage you and told you as much from the beginning.

So direct discussion with your opponent is "fruitless" but mouthing off about him in a shit-hole he cannot enter is not? That’s an interesting idea.

Butch
>I AM busy which means I necessarily have to pick and choose the way in which I spend my >time. Am I required to clear it through you every time I make love to my wife? I have friends at >CODOH, people I regularly correspond with and share information (both via open forum and >PM). If I chose to communicate with them, I’ll do it without your permission.

You’re free to talk to your fellow true believers as much as you like, but if you say you have no time to talk to me about certain issues yet find the time to mouth off about me in connection with those same issues, and that in a shit-hole I’m not allowed to enter, I’m entitled to consider you a sorry prick.

Butch
>You can spin your email correspondence anyway you wish but you contacted “someone’s” place >of employment with the specific intent of harming him -- if you continue to deny that, then >probably there is no middle ground.

Again, who was I supposedly trying to harm? The anonymous someone? I did not for a moment believe that he was who he claimed to be and worked at the place where he claimed to be working, so intent to harm him by contacting that place was out of the question. The purpose of my contact was to expose that someone as a liar and, incidentally, call an uninvolved person’s attention to the fact that some stinking @sshole was using his name and place of employment on the internet.

Butch
>I’m not calling you a liar,

You better never do that.

Butch
>and of course I have no way of knowing what goes on inside your mind but do think I am just >plain stupid?

Well, you haven’t shown much intelligence so far.

Butch
>You used “holocaust denier” in the body of the email.

So what?

Butch
>If you were serious, you would have contacted the office and inquired if “someone” was >employed there and how you might contact him?

Why, because you would have done it that way? Different people do things differently. And besides, pointing out the importance of the matter gave me a better chance of getting an answer to my question. Would Herbert Smith necessarily bother replying to some nobody asking whether so-and-so was working there?

Butch
>Last point, I did not mean to suggest that I had initiated the “holocaust denial law petition”. >That thought never even remotely entered my mind. I gave you (or thought I did) full credit for >that and I do think it a step in the right direction and hope you follow up on it.

If so, please forgive that awful misunderstanding your choice of words engendered.

Butch
>I will allow that the phraseology “RM has agreed to post a petition... “could be interpreted that >it was my idea but it wasn’t and I never meant to suggest it was.

Good.

Butch
>Also, realize that the particular correspondence that you picked apart was not directed you -- it >was directed to another individual with whom I maintain an extensive correspondence. All the >pertinent information -- including you idea of a petition -- is clearly documented for anyone who >really gives a fuck.

I’ll let who "who really gives a fuck" decide that.

Butch
>Why do you assume that I am automatically being duplicitous? Why?

I didn’t automatically assume anything. I just read into your words what I thought anyone "who really gives a fuck" might read into them.

Butch
>I even said in my CODOH post that RODOH did not appear to be the propaganda mouthpiece >that I initially thought it was.

Writing that about a real discussion forum on the censored propaganda mouthpiece per excellence is an amusing thing to do.

Butch
>I may well post there.

Wow, we're making some progress.

Butch
>Come on man, were both grown men,

I’m not so sure about you.

Butch
>let’s drop this “gossip column” dialogue.

Looks like you’re feeling uncomfortable with what you started, but OK. You stop, I stop.

Butch
>Post he petition, I’ll sign it and suggest to CODOH members to sign it as well.

That’s going to be fun.

Butch
>Finally “ngoodgame” has become something of a pawn in this thing but it is clear he asked a >perfectly reasonable and logical question (concerning denial laws) and he was ignored until I >pointed it out.

Poor ngoodgame, he must have made the impression of being on a trolling tour.

Butch
>After that JH made a couple of impotently weak -- even bizarre -- efforts at defending himself (which I rightfully referred to “damage control”).

Again, don’t you think it’s rather idiotic to speak of "damage control" when this blog’s position on denial laws was made clear in it’s very opening post?

Butch
>He (ngoodgame) is still out there (and apparently following the action) and is available for >“recruitment”.

I’ve invited the fellow to RODOH. He seems to be as reluctant to show up as you are.

Butch
>If you maintain your school-girl tactics,

Look who’s talking.

Butch
>he’s going to naturally dig deeper into the controversy and if he does that, he will come away >as a doubter or skeptic.

Cut out the "doubter" and "skeptic" crap. Both ngoodgame and you are true believers who reject certain facts because they don’t fit their worldview and therefore try to convince themselves and others that these facts didn’t happen, under the hypocritical and transparent pretense of being "doubters" and "skeptics". If any of you were reasonable doubters, the first thing you would be skeptical about would be the idiotic conspiracy theories that your challenging of said facts entails.

Butch
>RM,
>If I hadn't had a couple of beer, you probably could not have dragged me in to this but let me >ask you what the fuck do you think I meant when when I said:

>RM has agreed to draft and post a renunciation of holocaust denial laws petition at HC (and I’m >assuming at R.O.D.O.H. as well) and when he does, I agreed to post a copy at CODOH.

>How is it even remotely possible that you twist that into "my baby?"

The term "agreed" suggests that I agreed to someone’s proposal or suggestion, that’s how.

Butch
>You wonder why I call you disingenuous.

There’s nothing disingenuous in my interpretation. You may call it overly suspicious, if anything. But I don’t think it is even that.

Butch
>The most bizarre thing about this exchange is that you are actually going to defend himself.

What’s the poet trying to tell us?

Butch
>Do you really want to end up in the same catagory as JH?

The category of who thinks you’re just another run-of-the-mill "Revisionist" charlatan and treats you accordingly, you mean? I don’t mind.

Butch
>P.S. You do get points for robbing me of 20 minutes.

Did I piss you off, my friend? Great, that’s one of the things I’m here for.

ngoodgame said...

JH,

It appears that what we have here is another bona fide case of quote mining. I have made it abundantly clear throughout my posts that my research into holocaust controversies is “limited” and that “honestly I am not certain whether or not six million Jews were murdered, most of them in gas chambers”, by the Germans during WW2. I have said this repeatedly from the very beginning as well as articulating my suspicions about the official narrative. True, I have not hesitated to call the contributors here when I believed that they have made far reaching assertions that did not necessarily follow from the evidence they provided. But I have always maintained that I am anxious to be introduced to evidence that heretofore I was not aware of that would “remove all doubts from my mind”.

As for the quote mining: Here, you liberate a perhaps unfortunately worded quote from the context of all my other posts and repeatedly stated positions in order to make it sound as if I claimed I was familiar with ALL the evidence supporting the official narrative:

“…the claim in your original post was that revisionists have refuted ALL these pieces of evidence: ‘it is my contention that there is no evidence to support the official narrative that has not been reasonably refuted by revisionism.’”

In proper context of course, my quote is not stating my belief as I have already pleaded ignorance on the issue. It is simply the argument I was advancing in order to elicit a response that I could then evaluate for merit.

You continue: “YOU were the person who set that bar, so the onus is on you to go through every piece of evidence and prove that it has been refuted. If you're now admitting that you're not familiar with much of this evidence, then clearly your original claim was false, and was a lame attempt at trolling.

My friend, here you are obviously being overly contentious and evading my question. I am not only now contending that I am not familiar with much of this evidence as I have clearly stated time and time again on posts that you have read, but I have repeatedly pleaded with the contributors here to introduce me to evidence that I quite possibly am ignorant to. So, according to your logic, this means that I am guilty of “a lame attempt at trolling.”

Now, you may be right. I suppose it would depend on what your definition of a lame attempt at trolling is, or what a troll is. Personally, I have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of trolling so it is difficult for me to evaluate your logic. But I do feel that I have effectively and honestly communicated to you my motives and suspicions, therefore, I can't help but think that you are engaging in ad homonym attacks designed to stifle debate.

Again, I have come to this forum in search of truth. I have time and again stated my position with the intent for dialogue and an honest evaluation of arguments. From the very beginning, yours was an adversarial approach as my questioning of orthodoxy caused you to attack me as dishonest and biased.

I feel that my positions have been purposely misrepresented and my questions and concerns have been overlooked. Minutiae is repeatedly nitpicked and parsed while the main thrust of my argument is ignored. I have spent way too much energy clarifying already obvious statements and iterating and reiterating my position. None of this gets me any closer to the historical truth of WW2, it just tells me that I have wasted my time and energy trying to find answers on this forum.

Finally, I have been invited to join another forum. The only sensible reason that was offered as to why this other forum is superior to the current one is that it “is equipped with the full range of HTML functions…” I’m sorry, but the problems I have experienced on this forum have nothing to do with limited HTML functions. Why should I believe my experience would be any different at the RODOH forum?

Jonathan Harrison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Harrison said...

>> I am not only now contending that I am not familiar with much of this evidence as I have clearly stated time and time again on posts that you have read, but I have repeatedly pleaded with the contributors here to introduce me to evidence that I quite possibly am ignorant to. So, according to your logic, this means that I am guilty of “a lame attempt at trolling.”

If you were genuinely interested in evidence, you would go to a library and take out copies of, for example, Browning and Hilberg, both of whom were mentioned by myself above. You would not be asking myself to condense those texts into "your five best arguments".

I would sincerely recommend that you read those authors then write a list of questions on queries that you have about their evidence, if you still believe it to be insufficient. Then post those questions on RODOH.

If you are not willing to do this, then readers can make up their own minds about your motivation.

Part of the definition of trolling is an act of asking questions without serious intent. I'd judge a troll on whether he's framing his statements in a Straw Man manner that reveals his lack of seriousness about the subject, such as when you wrote “honestly I am not certain whether or not six million Jews were murdered, most of them in gas chambers”. No historian today claims that most of the six million were murdered in gas chambers. That's why you need to do some proper reading before you make statements of this nature, as they reveal whether you have a genuine interest in history.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Note to Butch:

The petition is up, see under

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/02/petition-to-german-legislator.html

Butch said...

JH,

I told you they'd start moderating your posts if you didn't tighten up and sure enough RM has to step in to save you. It was NT the first time wasn't it?

Though both used the "lazy-man's cut-and-paste technique" where they check each line for spelling, linguistic errors, or similar and refute the post completely out of context. That's not the issue here so I won't waste your time with it.

I will tell you that, as a very general rule, telling someone to "Fuck off and go play with your toys" is not the best rejoinder, especially if that someone is already making you look foolish.

Normally at this point I would simply dismiss you as a dullard but you are the initiator of this post at RODOH:

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=339.topic

which begins: "Some idiot called Bankdraft claims that the HC forum has not made its position on denial laws clear enough. Here's my response: /www.blogger.com/comment....7459777056"

Problem here is that I never said that. I never said it, I never implied it, and I never intimated it, as you are fully aware. Yet you speciously and wantonly posted it? What should I make of that?

Not having privy to your thoughts, I am forced to one of five conclusions:

1) You are mentally challenged
2) You're a child (i.e. under you're age of 21)
3) You thought you're could slide it through without it being noticed
4) You're a liar
5) You genuinely believe it is true (see #1)

Truth to tell, it's probably a bit of each but a falsehood none the less.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I may well be -- but if the premise is false doesn't that make the rest of the argument (and conclusion) false as well?

Finally you seem to take some amount of pride in your post, at least enough pride so that you posted it at RODOH. When someone takes pride in lying, what do you suggest I make of that?

You have said you would not respond to anymore of my comments so I won't expect an answer. You are dismissed.

RM

You're not doing much better.

Before I point out the weaknesses in your JH rescue mission, let's take one more look at the "holocaust denier" email you sent to some poor bastard's place of business.

You clearly wrote it with no regard to this "someone's" personal circumstances. In other words, on the flimsiest of evidence, you initiated an email that in today's politically-correct environment could well have had serious consequences. You meant to disrupt his life and that is clear to even a child.

We are all familiar with your reasoning (flawed as it is) for including 'holocaust denier' in the body of the text but what really boggles the mind is that you act as if it's a valid explanation!

When someone defends something like that, I'm forced to one of six conclusions:

1) You are mentally challenged
2) You think other people are mentally challenged
3) You're a child (i.e. under you're age of 21)
4) You thought you're could slide it through with out it being noticed
5) You are a liar
6) You're genuinely believes it is true (see #1)

It's a damn good thing you are not a lawyer because not only would you lose all your cases but you'd spend a lot of weekends in jail for contempt of court -- no judge would buy that load of horseshit you pass off as logic. It's insulting to thinking people.

Do you really believe that reasonably intelligent people would read your email, you impotent explanation, and come away thinking anything other than "fucking liar!" It also demonstrates to me the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the RODOH contributors when no one considered it even remotely out-of-line to use "holocaust denier" in an initial correspondence with someone you don't even know. I've said it before and I'll repeat it, that type of tactic is cravenly and deplorable. In other words typical of you.

I'm not going to address your lengthy refutation of ngoodgame at HC since it is more of the same (lazy man's refutation) plus that's between you and him but I will reiterate it is simplistic, lazy, and intellectually dishonest... but I'm guessing you know that. I will also say that I do not know this fellow but if you look at his earlier post (the ones JH was incapable of adequately handling), you'll see that he asked reasonable questions and got unreasonable answers until he was finally abandoned altogether.

While we're at it, what exactly is the propose of HC other than to refer people to ROHOH? You call yourself "Holocaust Controversies" and while you do get the occasional holocaust sycophant (though not many these days), with a blog title that suggests you deal with controversies, why do you not entertain them? Your standard response is to label the inquirer a holocaust denier (though occasionally -- thanks to JH -- we get the more colorful "Fuck off and play with your toys")

Lastly, I notice that you have posted a petition at HC but even you have to agree that it doesn't address the spirit of what you lead me to believe we were trying to accomplish.

Even the HC renunciation of denial laws is more potent than what you penned.

[Start (from HC Essential Postings)]

Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws sic being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.

[Stop]

BTW, I never did find this under "Essential Postings" (where JH said it was), I'm not doubting it's there but so are 100 (plus) other topics. The casual reader is not going to spend hours looking it up so that he can decide whether or not to call for a renunciation of denial laws.

In any event, you petition is insulting. Why don't you just say, "We believe deniers are mental patients and therefore not subject to criminal prosecution"?

How about something along these lines (taken in part from HC's stated position):

We do not endorse censorship of any kind, anywhere, regardless of topic. We call for a full renunciation of the medieval Holocaust Denial laws. We are likewise opposed to Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We are convinced that open, non-criminalized debate would quell any controversies much sooner than censorship or imprisonment and would thereby lay to rest any lingering doubt over the role Germany played in the Holocaust.

Note: I took the liberty of changing part of the original text from "anti-Holocaust Denial laws" to the linguistically correct "Holocaust Denial laws" so as to avoid the double negative. You might want to check with Mathis (sp?) on that.

See how simple that is?

I will however do as I promised, I will sign the petition and I will post it at CODOH but I will tell you ahead of time I'm going to use the term "limp-dick" somewhere in the introduction.

I don't care if you post it or not. It actually serves the revisionist cause better because anything banned is likely to draw the question, "Why?"

Here's my take on the reasoning behind the German denial laws (taken in part from one of my COHOH posts).

[Start]

I don't believe the German people have whined (concerning 60 years of vilification), I think it is by far and away the Jews who have propagated this thing. It is also my belief that the "Anti Revisionism" laws in Germany are in effect so that Germany may [finally] put this thing behind [her] and if a few scientist have to sit in jail to bring that about, the German government is willing to condone it for the greater good of its people.

They recognized that Nuremberg was a joke and that trying to defend themselves would be futile so they just took their licks and rebuilt [their country] (and a damn fine job they did).

The Germans are too sophisticated a people to support censorship but they also recognize that they have to move forward in the best way they can. This also explains the billions of dollars that have been extorted from the Germans.

[Stop]

Besides, holocaust denial laws are doomed to the same fate as the Berlin wall. One day someone is going to just say "Fuck this! We're one of the most advanced cultures in the world and we don't endorse censorship".

My guess, three years.

B

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Butch
>RM

>You're not doing much better.

>Before I point out the weaknesses in your JH rescue mission,

You obviously have a screw loose, my friend.

Butch
>let's take one more look at the "holocaust denier" email you sent to some poor bastard's place >of business.

Wow, that seems to be quite an obsession. And you apparently haven’t yet understood that the fellow whose place of business was addressed was not the poor bastard who had falsely claimed that place of business, but a gentleman who was being impersonated by that poor bastard and who was grateful for the notice.

Butch
>You clearly wrote it with no regard to this "someone's" personal circumstances.

Actually I didn’t even consider it possible that said "someone's" personal circumstances might be affected, certain as I was that said "someone" was not who he had claimed to be.

Butch
>In other words, on the flimsiest of evidence,

"Flimsiest of evidence" to what? To that "someone"'s being a "Revisionist" scumbag? The fellow never made a secret of that.

Butch
>you initiated an email that in today's politically-correct environment could well have had serious >consequences.

For whom, for the scumbag? Only if there had been a chance that he was who he had claimed to be, a possibility I never entertained.

Butch
>You meant to disrupt his life and that is clear to even a child.

How can I mean to disrupt the life of someone I am certain is not identical with the person I inquire for? Your reasoning sucks, Butch.

Butch
>We are all familiar with your reasoning (flawed as it is) for including 'holocaust denier' in the >body of the text

You haven’t yet explained what is supposed to be 'flawed' about my reasoning when pointing out to Herbert Smith that some asshole was impersonating someone who might be an employee of theirs, and I doubt you’ll ever be able to.

Butch
>but what really boggles the mind is that you act as if it's a valid explanation!

You haven’t yet explained why my reason is supposed to be invalid, and I doubt you’ll ever be able to.

Butch
>When someone defends something like that, I'm forced to one of six conclusions:

>1) You are mentally challenged
>2) You think other people are mentally challenged
>3) You're a child (i.e. under you're age of 21)
>4) You thought you're could slide it through with out it being noticed
>5) You are a liar
>6) You're genuinely believes it is true (see #1)

Great, now you only have to explain what either of these conclusions is based on. Other than your obvious urge to insult me because you’re raving mad at me, that is.

Butch
>It's a damn good thing you are not a lawyer because not only would you lose all your cases but >you'd spend a lot of weekends in jail for contempt of court -- no judge would buy that load of >horseshit you pass off as logic.

I’m confident to let any judge decide that for himself, thanks. And I don’t give much for what Butch thinks a judge would do.

Butch
>It's insulting to thinking people.

Do you count yourself among thinking people, Butch? Thinking people tend to have better arguments than your hollow appeals to the standards of "thinking people"…

Butch
>Do you really believe that reasonably intelligent people would read your email, you impotent >explanation, and come away thinking anything other than "fucking liar!"

… or than hysterically throwing around insults like "impotent explanation" and "fucking liar".

Butch
>It also demonstrates to me the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the RODOH contributors when no >one considered it even remotely out-of-line to use "holocaust denier" in an initial >correspondence with someone you don't even know.

Again fishing for an excuse to duck posting on RODOH, Butch?

Butch
>I've said it before and I'll repeat it, that type of tactic is cravenly and deplorable.

What "tactic", Butch? There was no tactic at play outside your paranoid little mind.

Butch
>In other words typical of you.
From what previous encounters do you presume to know what is "typical" of me, Butch?

Butch
>I'm not going to address your lengthy refutation of ngoodgame at HC since it is more of the >same (lazy man's refutation) plus that's between you and him but I will reiterate it is simplistic, >lazy, and intellectually dishonest... but I'm guessing you know that.

I can understand your urge to let off steam, but you don’t expect me to be impressed by rambling as bereft of content as that, do you?

Butch
>I will also say that I do not know this fellow but if you look at his earlier post (the ones JH was >incapable of adequately handling), you'll see that he asked reasonable questions and got >unreasonable answers until he was finally abandoned altogether.

You’re repeating yourself, Butch. Do you really think that your irrelevant blather becomes more relevant through repetition?

Butch
>While we're at it, what exactly is the propose of HC other than to refer people to ROHOH?

The blog has several purposes, which are mentioned under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/03/intention-and-explanation.html

Butch
>You call yourself "Holocaust Controversies" and while you do get the occasional holocaust >sycophant (though not many these days), with a blog title that suggests you deal with >controversies, why do you not entertain them?

So dealing with controversies implies entertaining every controversial claim? Funny idea.

Butch
>Your standard response is to label the inquirer a holocaust denier (though occasionally -- >thanks to JH -- we get the more colorful "Fuck off and play with your toys")

No, the standard response to the nonsense your kind produces is to argumentatively dissect that nonsense. Of course we may also call you what we think you are and treat you like we think your behavior merits. If you can’t deal with that, stay out.

Butch
>Lastly, I notice that you have posted a petition at HC but even you have to agree that it doesn't >address the spirit of what you lead me to believe we were trying to accomplish.

I don’t know what you fantasize I led you to believe, but the petition text differs only in some minor fine-tuning aspects from the one I quoted in my comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57:00 AM, to which your reply was the following:

«I’m sure I’ll comment again at HC but this particular topic is a waste of time; fencing douche-bags if you will. I am extremely busy at present and will not be responding to any follow-on comments you make at HC or RHODH but I will keep an eye out for the petition.»
(Friday, January 04, 2008 5:41:00 PM)

«Roberto,

Thank you for keeping me informed. I will loook for it next weekend -- it seems a step in the right direction.

Regards,


(Sunday, January 06, 2008 5:15:00 PM)

Nevertheless I’m not surprised that you started whining as soon as the thing went up. Your just a worthless troll, after all.

Butch
>Even the HC renunciation of denial laws is more potent than what you penned.

>[Start (from HC Essential Postings)]

>Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in >favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws sic being passed in Britain or the United States. We would >prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs >out of Deniers.

>[Stop]

So, how is this more «potent» than my petition text?

Butch
>BTW, I never did find this under "Essential Postings" (where JH said it was), I'm not doubting >it's there but so are 100 (plus) other topics. The casual reader is not going to spend hours >looking it up so that he can decide whether or not to call for a renunciation of denial laws.

You’re a bit of a mole, aren’t you? If you click the "Essential Postings" link http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html , the first three lines you see are these:

«Saturday, April 01, 2006
Quick links
This posting will be linked to from the frontpage and will contain links to old postings of significance.

Intention and Explanation - our first posting (23/03/2006)»


Just click the link under "Intention and Explanation". Are you in the whining business?

Butch
>In any event, you petition is insulting. Why don't you just say, "We believe deniers are mental >patients and therefore not subject to criminal prosecution"?

Because I don’t think that stupidity and mendacity necessarily imply mental insanity. And your comment comes way too late, considering that you had the opportunity to read an almost identical text since Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57:00 AM. I even called your attention to why it was worded the way it was:

«Of course the petition is worded in a manner that may scratch your "Revisionist" ego, but I would be lying if I worded it so as to contain anything other than my firm and honest opinion (you may have noticed that the statement of German legal scholar Baumann quoted in the petition text has been my custom signature on RODOH for quite a while) about "Revisionist" baloney, and besides that’s the only way it stands any chance of getting attention from anyone important in the GFR. I'm positively sure that, if you come along with some crap about legitimate "doubt" and the need to listen to both "sides", they’ll just laugh their heads off and drop it in the rubbish bin.

So, Mr. "Bankdraft", are you interested in going along with my proposition to directly and expressly request the revocation of anti-denial laws from one of the states that applies such laws?

Please let me know as soon as possible.»


Were you sleeping on your tummy then, Butch? Or are you just playing dumb now?

Butch
>How about something along these lines (taken in part from HC's stated position):

>We do not endorse censorship of any kind, anywhere, regardless of topic. We call for a full >renunciation of the medieval Holocaust Denial laws. We are likewise opposed to Holocaust >Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We are convinced that open, non->criminalized debate would quell any controversies much sooner than censorship or >imprisonment and would thereby lay to rest any lingering doubt over the role Germany played >in the Holocaust.

No, Sir. This sounds like there’s some merit to your "lingering doubt", which is bullshit. Once again:

«Of course the petition is worded in a manner that may scratch your "Revisionist" ego, but I would be lying if I worded it so as to contain anything other than my firm and honest opinion (you may have noticed that the statement of German legal scholar Baumann quoted in the petition text has been my custom signature on RODOH for quite a while) about "Revisionist" baloney, and besides that’s the only way it stands any chance of getting attention from anyone important in the GFR. I'm positively sure that, if you come along with some crap about legitimate "doubt" and the need to listen to both "sides", they’ll just laugh their heads off and drop it in the rubbish bin.»

Take it or leave it.

Butch
>Note: I took the liberty of changing part of the original text from "anti-Holocaust Denial laws" to >the linguistically correct "Holocaust Denial laws" so as to avoid the double negative. You might >want to check with Mathis (sp?) on that.

>See how simple that is?

Just who do you "Revisionists" think you are? You’re nothing but a bunch of ideologically motivated fanatics trying to bullshit away certain facts that don’t fit into their ideological bubble. So while your opponents here are willing to campaign for your right to throw your bullshit around, don’t expect them to call it anything other than bullshit and to feel anything other than contempt for its proponents.

Butch
>I will however do as I promised, I will sign the petition and I will post it at CODOH but I will tell >you ahead of time I'm going to use the term "limp-dick" somewhere in the introduction.

Yeah, I guess you’ll have to do some name-calling when showing the petition text to your fellow true believers. They might otherwise suspect that you agreed with a text that spells out what they are and what their "doubt" is worth, go figure.

Butch
>I don't care if you post it or not.

I have posted it already.

Butch
>It actually serves the revisionist cause better because anything banned is likely to draw the >question, "Why?"

Actually I don’t think revocation of hate speech laws would serve the "Revisionist" cause at all. On the contrary.

Butch
>Here's my take on the reasoning behind the German denial laws (taken in part from one of my >COHOH posts).

>[Start]

>I don't believe the German people have whined (concerning 60 years of vilification), I think it is >by far and away the Jews who have propagated this thing. It is also my belief that the "Anti >Revisionism" laws in Germany are in effect so that Germany may [finally] put this thing behind >[her] and if a few scientist have to sit in jail to bring that about, the German government is >willing to condone it for the greater good of its people.

>They recognized that Nuremberg was a joke and that trying to defend themselves would be >futile so they just took their licks and rebuilt [their country] (and a damn fine job they did).

>The Germans are too sophisticated a people to support censorship but they also recognize that >they have to move forward in the best way they can. This also explains the billions of dollars >that have been extorted from the Germans.

>[Stop]

You don’t have to spell out your ignorant Jew-hating fantasies, they have become clear enough already.

Butch
>Besides, holocaust denial laws are doomed to the same fate as the Berlin wall. One day >someone is going to just say "Fuck this! We're one of the most advanced cultures in the world >and we don't endorse censorship".

>My guess, three years.

I wouldn’t look forward to that day if I were you. Without hate speech laws in Germany, you’ll have one excuse less for the miserable results of "Revisionist research". And you’ll also have one less pretext for whining and portraying yourselves as poor darling victims of infamous "persecution". The day these laws are revoked you will miss them dearly, trust me.

Butch said...

Roberto,

My comments are designated by double arrows (>>). Have fun

Butch
>RM

>You're not doing much better.

>Before I point out the weaknesses in your JH rescue mission,

You obviously have a screw loose, my friend.

>>You have two screws loose. Wow, this is an easy to way to debate! Thanks for pointing it out.

Butch
>let's take one more look at the "holocaust denier" email you sent to some poor bastard's place >of business.

Wow, that seems to be quite an obsession. And you apparently haven’t yet understood that the fellow whose place of business was addressed was not the poor bastard who had falsely claimed that place of business, but a gentleman who was being impersonated by that poor bastard and who was grateful for the notice.

>>Yes but you did not know that and in any event, the use holocaust denier was totally uncalled for. No Rob, it just won't do.

Butch
>You clearly wrote it with no regard to this "someone's" personal circumstances.

Actually I didn’t even consider it possible that said "someone's" personal circumstances might be affected, certain as I was that said "someone" was not who he had claimed to be.

>> Yes but you did not know that when you wrote the email

Butch
>In other words, on the flimsiest of evidence,

"Flimsiest of evidence" to what? To that "someone"'s being a "Revisionist" scumbag? The fellow never made a secret of that.

>> Flimsiest of evidence concerning the person to whom you wrote the email, you fucking nitwit! Are you fucking retarded? Can you understand nothing? You get a name and address from some guy on the phone and decide to write his boss and accuse him of being an "odious fellow and a holocaust denier". You didn't even "suggest" he was a holocaust denier, you openly called him a HDer.

Butch
>you initiated an email that in today's politically-correct environment could well have had serious >consequences.

For whom, for the scumbag? Only if there had been a chance that he was who he had claimed to be, a possibility I never entertained.

>> But you didn't actually know that for a fact.

Butch
>You meant to disrupt his life and that is clear to even a child.

How can I mean to disrupt the life of someone I am certain is not identical with the person I inquire for? Your reasoning sucks, Butch.

>> If you were certain, why bother writing the letter? Dumb ass. Oh, that's right, to warn him his name was being used by some hate-mongers and I suppose that's also you opened the email with "holocaust denier"? And why you chose to contact his boss and not him?

Butch
>We are all familiar with your reasoning (flawed as it is) for including 'holocaust denier' in the >body of the text

You haven’t yet explained what is supposed to be 'flawed' about my reasoning when pointing out to Herbert Smith that some asshole was impersonating someone who might be an employee of theirs, and I doubt you’ll ever be able to.

>> First of all are you familiar with the word "flawed"? I have to ask because you appear not to be. You continue to defend your actions when the email could have been submitted without the "holocaust denier" label attached and would have served the exact same purpose. BTW, did you make an attempt to determine if the fellow actually worked there or did you send the email straight to his boss.

>>Why did you not send it to him personally?

Butch
>but what really boggles the mind is that you act as if it's a valid explanation!

You haven’t yet explained why my reason is supposed to be invalid, and I doubt you’ll ever be able to.

>> Read previous response.

Butch
>When someone defends something like that, I'm forced to one of six conclusions:

>1) You are mentally challenged
>2) You think other people are mentally challenged
>3) You're a child (i.e. under you're age of 21)
>4) You thought you're could slide it through with out it being noticed
>5) You are a liar
>6) You're genuinely believes it is true (see #1)

Great, now you only have to explain what either of these conclusions is based on. Other than your obvious urge to insult me because you’re raving mad at me, that is.

>> All of them indicate some sort of delusional or non standard thinking -- you decide which fits. I'm leaning toward #2 and #5

Butch
>It's a damn good thing you are not a lawyer because not only would you lose all your cases but >you'd spend a lot of weekends in jail for contempt of court -- no judge would buy that load of >horseshit you pass off as logic.

I’m confident to let any judge decide that for himself, thanks. And I don’t give much for what Butch thinks a judge would do.

>> Yeah? And how would you respond when the judge asked you why you didn't send it directly to the person in question?

Butch
>It's insulting to thinking people.

Do you count yourself among thinking people, Butch? Thinking people tend to have better arguments than your hollow appeals to the standards of "thinking people"…

>> How would you respond to thinking/logical people when asked why you didn't send it directly to the person in question? As a minimum you could have made email inquiry if the fellow worked there. Jesus Christ, do you think no one else has a brain!?

>>The only thing more egregious than you action is your inane defense of it.

Butch
>Do you really believe that reasonably intelligent people would read your email, you impotent >explanation, and come away thinking anything other than "fucking liar!"


… or than hysterically throwing around insults like "impotent explanation" and "fucking liar".

>> Word parsing, but I'll play along. When people are caught in a blatant lie, the accuser will often attach an adjective in front of the word liar. I chose "fucking". Live with it.

>>Impotent is a valid word, look it up. If you choose to make the connection to erectile dysfunction, that's your business.

Butch
>It also demonstrates to me the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the RODOH contributors when no >one considered it even remotely out-of-line to use "holocaust denier" in an initial >correspondence with someone you don't even know.

Again fishing for an excuse to duck posting on RODOH, Butch?

>> No, I've even said I may well post there but if your RODOH chums can't (or won't) even pick out the duplicity of your 'holocaust denier' email, possibly they aren't on the same intellectual plain as me. The CODOH folks would have absolutely pointed that out...'course they never would have stooped to such a puerile stunt.

Butch
>I've said it before and I'll repeat it, that type of tactic is cravenly and deplorable.

What "tactic", Butch? There was no tactic at play outside your paranoid little mind.

>> The tactic of contacting someone's place of business and referring to them as a 'holocaust denier. Also the tactic of obtaining and publishing personal information (as Sergey did to me). Are you just plain stupid? How many times do I have to say it. It's standard smear tactics, you did it, then published the letter now you won't own up to it..

Butch
>In other words typical of you.
From what previous encounters do you presume to know what is "typical" of me, Butch?

>> All of 'em

Butch
>I'm not going to address your lengthy refutation of ngoodgame at HC since it is more of the >same (lazy man's refutation) plus that's between you and him but I will reiterate it is simplistic, >lazy, and intellectually dishonest... but I'm guessing you know that.

I can understand your urge to let off steam, but you don’t expect me to be impressed by rambling as bereft of content as that, do you?

>> Don't know what that's supposed to mean but this lazy man's posting technique is definitely the way to rebut! Thanks for the tip.

Butch
>I will also say that I do not know this fellow but if you look at his earlier post (the ones JH was >incapable of adequately handling), you'll see that he asked reasonable questions and got >unreasonable answers until he was finally abandoned altogether.

You’re repeating yourself, Butch. Do you really think that your irrelevant blather becomes more relevant through repetition?

>> Well, you have to keep yelling fire 'till someone responds. Sure would have been easier if you guys had addressed these issues sooner.

Butch
>While we're at it, what exactly is the propose of HC other than to refer people to ROHOH?

The blog has several purposes, which are mentioned under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/03/intention-and-explanation.html

>>OK, thank you... now why don't you do that?

Butch
>You call yourself "Holocaust Controversies" and while you do get the occasional holocaust >sycophant (though not many these days), with a blog title that suggests you deal with >controversies, why do you not entertain them?

So dealing with controversies implies entertaining every controversial claim? Funny idea.

>> The only claim (which wasn't really a claim at all but a request for dialogue) I have seen come through you blog recently is the very civil queries of ngoodgame. By the way "every" is a superlative. JH had trouble with that one too.

>>If you can't deal with every (i.e. all), could you maybe deal with some of them? Or even one?

Butch
>Your standard response is to label the inquirer a holocaust denier (though occasionally -- >thanks to JH -- we get the more colorful "Fuck off and play with your toys")

No, the standard response to the nonsense your kind produces is to argumentatively dissect that nonsense. Of course we may also call you what we think you are and treat you like we think your behavior merits. If you can’t deal with that, stay out.

>> Now that's an idea... but then you won't have any comments (except from each other).

Butch
>Lastly, I notice that you have posted a petition at HC but even you have to agree that it doesn't >address the spirit of what you lead me to believe we were trying to accomplish.

I don’t know what you fantasize I led you to believe, but the petition text differs only in some minor fine-tuning aspects from the one I quoted in my comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57:00 AM, to which your reply was the following:

«I’m sure I’ll comment again at HC but this particular topic is a waste of time; fencing douche-bags if you will. I am extremely busy at present and will not be responding to any follow-on comments you make at HC or RHODH but I will keep an eye out for the petition.»
(Friday, January 04, 2008 5:41:00 PM)

«Roberto,

Thank you for keeping me informed. I will loook for it next weekend -- it seems a step in the right direction.

Regards,


(Sunday, January 06, 2008 5:15:00 PM)

Nevertheless I’m not surprised that you started whining as soon as the thing went up. Your just a worthless troll, after all.

>> Worthless troll? And you know this how? Did I not sign your impotent petition? Do trolls usually become that involved?

>>However, I'm going to allow that what you what you said you were going to write and what actually went up is probably very similar. I probably should have read it closer. Maybe I was caught up in the spirit of cooperation but I should have realized that it would be nothing with any real merit. BTW, you do realize that it will be completely ignored by the first bureaucrat who sees it as the ramblings of an idiot. What's your projection? 20 signatures?

>>It will end up in the trash anyway because there is no way to determine the veracity of a "signature".

Butch
>Even the HC renunciation of denial laws is more potent than what you penned.

>[Start (from HC Essential Postings)]

>Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in >favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws sic being passed in Britain or the United States. We would >prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs >out of Deniers.

>[Stop]

So, how is this more «potent» than my petition text?

>> Well for one thing, it doesn't include that inane quote you are so font of

Butch
>BTW, I never did find this under "Essential Postings" (where JH said it was), I'm not doubting >it's there but so are 100 (plus) other topics. The casual reader is not going to spend hours >looking it up so that he can decide whether or not to call for a renunciation of denial laws.

You’re a bit of a mole, aren’t you? If you click the "Essential Postings" link http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html , the first three lines you see are these:

«Saturday, April 01, 2006
Quick links
This posting will be linked to from the frontpage and will contain links to old postings of significance.

Intention and Explanation - our first posting (23/03/2006)»

Just click the link under "Intention and Explanation". Are you in the whining business?

>> All I said was I never found it, I never said it wasn't there, Because you knew exactly where it was -- it's your fucking website -- doesn't mean the casual reader can find it. Put it on your home page if you're so intellectually honest.

Butch
>In any event, you petition is insulting. Why don't you just say, "We believe deniers are mental >patients and therefore not subject to criminal prosecution"?

Because I don’t think that stupidity and mendacity necessarily imply mental insanity. And your comment comes way too late, considering that you had the opportunity to read an almost identical text since Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57:00 AM. I even called your attention to why it was worded the way it was:

«Of course the petition is worded in a manner that may scratch your "Revisionist" ego, but I would be lying if I worded it so as to contain anything other than my firm and honest opinion (you may have noticed that the statement of German legal scholar Baumann quoted in the petition text has been my custom signature on RODOH for quite a while) about "Revisionist" baloney, and besides that’s the only way it stands any chance of getting attention from anyone important in the GFR. I'm positively sure that, if you come along with some crap about legitimate "doubt" and the need to listen to both "sides", they’ll just laugh their heads off and drop it in the rubbish bin.

So, Mr. "Bankdraft", are you interested in going along with my proposition to directly and expressly request the revocation of anti-denial laws from one of the states that applies such laws?

Please let me know as soon as possible.»

Were you sleeping on your tummy then, Butch? Or are you just playing dumb now?

>> You're positively sure it would have ended up in the rubbish bin? You live in Portugal but have first hand knowledge of how the German government handles internal matters -- you are an impressive guy! Do you think they will act on your 20 signature petition?

>> I signed the fucking petition, what else do you want? And I have said, I probably did not read it close enough.

Butch
>How about something along these lines (taken in part from HC's stated position):

>We do not endorse censorship of any kind, anywhere, regardless of topic. We call for a full >renunciation of the medieval Holocaust Denial laws. We are likewise opposed to Holocaust >Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We are convinced that open, non->criminalized debate would quell any controversies much sooner than censorship or >imprisonment and would thereby lay to rest any lingering doubt over the role Germany played >in the Holocaust.



No, Sir. This sounds like there’s some merit to your "lingering doubt", which is bullshit. Once again:

«Of course the petition is worded in a manner that may scratch your "Revisionist" ego, but I would be lying if I worded it so as to contain anything other than my firm and honest opinion (you may have noticed that the statement of German legal scholar Baumann quoted in the petition text has been my custom signature on RODOH for quite a while) about "Revisionist" baloney, and besides that’s the only way it stands any chance of getting attention from anyone important in the GFR. I'm positively sure that, if you come along with some crap about legitimate "doubt" and the need to listen to both "sides", they’ll just laugh their heads off and drop it in the rubbish bin.»

Take it or leave it.

>>I've already signed the fucking petition, what else do you want?
Butch
>Note: I took the liberty of changing part of the original text from "anti-Holocaust Denial laws" to >the linguistically correct "Holocaust Denial laws" so as to avoid the double negative. You might >want to check with Mathis (sp?) on that.

>See how simple that is?

Just who do you "Revisionists" think you are? You’re nothing but a bunch of ideologically motivated fanatics trying to bullshit away certain facts that don’t fit into their ideological bubble. So while your opponents here are willing to campaign for your right to throw your bullshit around, don’t expect them to call it anything other than bullshit and to feel anything other than contempt for its proponents.

>> Do you genuinely consider that crap petition to be "campaign for (my) your right to throw (my) your bullshit around"? Grow up.

Butch
>I will however do as I promised, I will sign the petition and I will post it at CODOH but I will tell >you ahead of time I'm going to use the term "limp-dick" somewhere in the introduction.

Yeah, I guess you’ll have to do some name-calling when showing the petition text to your fellow true believers. They might otherwise suspect that you agreed with a text that spells out what they are and what their "doubt" is worth, go figure.

>> Well, I did say I'd use the phrase "limp-dick" (which it is) but I probably won't. The CODOH folks will figure it out on their own. Check "New Postings in a day or so and you'll know exactly how I presented it to them.

>> Plus given your tactics, they are going to be reluctant to identify then selves to the likes of you in any way, shape, or form since you have already demonstrated that you have zero compunction about emailing employers and the like.

Butch
>I don't care if you post it or not.


I have posted it already.

>> Yes you have. Let me rephrase it, I don't care if you send it or not.

Butch
>It actually serves the revisionist cause better because anything banned is likely to draw the >question, "Why?"

Actually I don’t think revocation of hate speech laws would serve the "Revisionist" cause at all. On the contrary.

>> That's because you are not a logical thinker.

Butch
>Here's my take on the reasoning behind the German denial laws (taken in part from one of my >COHOH posts).

>[Start]

>I don't believe the German people have whined (concerning 60 years of vilification), I think it is >by far and away the Jews who have propagated this thing. It is also my belief that the "Anti >Revisionism" laws in Germany are in effect so that Germany may [finally] put this thing behind >[her] and if a few scientist have to sit in jail to bring that about, the German government is >willing to condone it for the greater good of its people.

>They recognized that Nuremberg was a joke and that trying to defend themselves would be >futile so they just took their licks and rebuilt [their country] (and a damn fine job they did).

>The Germans are too sophisticated a people to support censorship but they also recognize that >they have to move forward in the best way they can. This also explains the billions of dollars >that have been extorted from the Germans.

>[Stop]

You don’t have to spell out your ignorant Jew-hating fantasies, they have become clear enough already.

>> Yes, in your pathetic little mind. BTW, do you disagree with me or not? More people were systematically murdered under Stalin than ever died in concentration camps but that seems to have been relegated to past history. What's with the proliferation of holocaust museums 60 years later?

Butch
>Besides, holocaust denial laws are doomed to the same fate as the Berlin wall. One day >someone is going to just say "Fuck this! We're one of the most advanced cultures in the world >and we don't endorse censorship".

>My guess, three years.

I wouldn’t look forward to that day if I were you. Without hate speech laws in Germany, you’ll have one excuse less for the miserable results of "Revisionist research". And you’ll also have one less pretext for whining and portraying yourselves as poor darling victims of infamous "persecution". The day these laws are revoked you will miss them dearly, trust me.

>> Maybe you have a point. Censorship has long been a tenant of western civilization. Possibly we could even burn a few books to further suppress thought-crimes?

>>Trust you? Are you shitting me. Maybe I'll send you my home address since I could be sure you wouldn't abuse it in any way.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

You're quite the hysteric, aren't you, Butch?

I guess I'll let our readers amuse themselves with your furious outbursts for a while before responding to them. I have much other things to do today, anyway.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Butch,

Here are my comments to your “double arrow” comments. Enjoy.

Roberto

----------

>>You have two screws loose. Wow, this is an easy to way to debate! Thanks for pointing it out.

Just trying to help you. :-)

>>Yes but you did not know that

Well, I did know that "Lamb Supreme" – the fellow who falsely claimed to be David Phillips – is an inveterate liar. He had become sort of an old acquaintance by then.

>>and in any event, the use holocaust denier was totally uncalled for.

No, it was meant to point out the importance of the problem to HC and thus make sure that they would put me in contact with the real David Phillips, if they had someone by that name working for them.

>> Yes but you did not know that when you wrote the email

The risk that "Lamb Supreme" might actually be David Phillips of Herbert Smith was negligible, for the reasons mentioned.

>> Flimsiest of evidence concerning the person to whom you wrote the email, you fucking nitwit! Are you fucking retarded? Can you understand nothing? You get a name and address from some guy on the phone and decide to write his boss and accuse him of being an "odious fellow and a holocaust denier". You didn't even "suggest" he was a holocaust denier, you openly called him a HDer.

Are you that slow on the uptake, or are you just playing dumb? I got nothing from anyone on the phone. A well-known "Revisionist" troll touring RODOH under the handle of "Lamb Supreme", after having exhausted his previous handles "rossiabroad" and "Lurkerthe", claimed in a post to Nick Terry that he was a solicitor at Herbert Smith by the name of David Phillips. In subsequent discussions with me and others, the fellow got too personal for my taste, whereupon I insisted that he identify himself. On the thread

http://p102.ezboard.com/Will-our-chief-troll-Lamb-Supreme-/frodohforumfrm25.showMessage?topicID=414.topic

I opened a poll with the topic:

‘Will our chief troll Lamb Supreme be man enough to duly reveal his identity and whereabouts?’

Here’s the exchange that followed:

"Lamb Supreme", post # 71:

«Remove this baiting thread to Siberian exile.

I am attempting to improve my behaviour but potty-mouth here keeps trying to drag me down to his gutter.»


Me, post # 8177:

«Actually "potty mouth" is trying to make LS behave like a gentleman for once in his wasted life.

Unsurprisingly, LS can't take that.»


"Lamb Supreme", post # 73:

«Well considering I have already told you that I am David Phillips, of Herbert Smith I really fail to see your point.

If you really don't believe I am David Phillips by all means contact Herbert Smith and blow my cover. But you are too cowardly to do that.

www.herbertsmith.com»


Me, post # 8178:

«You shouldn’t project your own fallacies onto your opponent, mate.»

"Lamb Supreme", post # 75:

«I see, so you really don't have any doubts that I am who I say I am and this is just a troll.

If you think I am lying about who I am and who I work show the courage of your convictions and contact them.»


Me, post # 8179:

«Nothing easier than that, mate. Here’s a copy of the message I just sent them:

Quote:

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:31:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Guadalupe Salcedo" cortagravatas@yahoo.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Mr. David Phillips
To: contact@herbertsmith.com

Dear Sirs,

My name is Roberto Muehlenkamp, and I am a German citizen domiciled in Portugal.

I am writing to you in my capacity as a moderator of a historical discussion forum that you may find under p102.ezboard.com/brodohforum . I thought it might interest you to know that a rather unpleasant character, a Holocaust denier posting under the alias «Lamb Supreme», among others, has claimed to be one of your attorneys or solicitors, by the name of David Phillips.

As I believe this to be a false claim, I hereby kindly ask you to forward this message to Mr. David Phillips, in case you have an attorney or solicitor by that name, so that he may contact me and clear up this matter. Should there be no David Phillips at Herbert Smith LLP, your communication in this sense will be sufficient clarification.

«Lamb Supreme» first claimed to be Mr. David Phillips at Herbert Smith in his post # 11 under p102.ezboard.com/frodohfo...mp;stop=39 . He repeated the claim in his post # 73 under p102.ezboard.com/Will-our...=414.topic .

I thank you very much for your attention and remain,

With my best regards,
Roberto Muehlenkamp»


It shouldn’t be too hard to understand what led to my contacting Herbert Smith (the fellow’s "go ask them if you don’t believe me" – insistence) and what my motivation was (showing him up as the liar I knew him to be).

To be sure, I called the guy an "odious fellow" (or, more precisely, "a rather unpleasant character") and a Holocaust denier. I did so because, from what I had seen of him for quite a while prior to this occasion, both epithets fit him like a glove. You may want to argue that "Revisionists" are not Holocaust deniers, but to me both terms are synonyms, and who produces the crap that this fellow has been boring his fellow posters with certainly qualifies for both.

I’ll assume in your benefit that you didn’t read the above-quoted RODOH exchange before firing away. You seem to be rather sloppy reader altogether.

>> But you didn't actually know that for a fact.

The risk that "Lamb Supreme" might actually be David Phillips of Herbert Smith was negligible, for the reasons mentioned.

>> If you were certain, why bother writing the letter?

To have positive proof that would allow me to expose the fellow as the liar I knew he was. Think before asking.

>>Oh, that's right, to warn him his name was being used by some hate-mongers and I suppose that's also you opened the email with "holocaust denier"?

No, calling the real David Phillips’ attention to the fact that some asshole was impersonating him was but the secondary purpose. The primary purpose was to show that "Lamb Supreme" had lied about his identity.

>>And why you chose to contact his boss and not him?

Because I didn’t have David Phillips’ e-mail address, smartass.

>> First of all are you familiar with the word "flawed"? I have to ask because you appear not to be.

Cut the crap.

>>You continue to defend your actions when the email could have been submitted without the "holocaust denier" label attached and would have served the exact same purpose.

I don’t think Herbert Smith would have given David Phillips my contact if I had just gone like,
"Hi, my name is this-and-that, I’d like to talk to your David Phillips, so please ask him to contact me." I’d probably still be waiting.

>> BTW, did you make an attempt to determine if the fellow actually worked there or did you send the email straight to his boss.

I tried to find David Phillips’ e-mail. No luck.

>>Why did you not send it to him personally?

See above.

>> All of them indicate some sort of delusional or non standard thinking -- you decide which fits. I'm leaning toward #2 and #5.

Now all we need is an explanation whence you concluded on «some sort of delusional or non standard thinking». Being as you are a "Revisionist", I wouldn’t be surprised if you had simply projected the workings of your own mind.

>> Yeah? And how would you respond when the judge asked you why you didn't send it directly to the person in question?

As I did above.

Well, with a judge I might keep the "smartass" to myself. :-)

>> How would you respond to thinking/logical people when asked why you didn't send it directly to the person in question? As a minimum you could have made email inquiry if the fellow worked there.

I’d probably still be waiting for the answer. Why on earth should an outfit as important as Herbert Smith reply to some nobody’s query whether so-and-so works there?

>>Jesus Christ, do you think no one else has a brain!?

Well, I don’t think much of yours.

>>The only thing more egregious than you action is your inane defense of it.

The only thing inane here is the fuss you keep making about my «egregious» action.

>> Word parsing, but I'll play along. When people are caught in a blatant lie, the accuser will often attach an adjective in front of the word liar. I chose "fucking". Live with it.

I don’t mind the «fucking». My point is that you haven’t caught me lying just because you claim you did.

>>Impotent is a valid word, look it up. If you choose to make the connection to erectile dysfunction, that's your business.

The point here is that my explanation is not «impotent» just because you call it that.
Strong words are no substitute for arguments.

>> No, I've even said I may well post there but if your RODOH chums can't (or won't) even pick out the duplicity of your 'holocaust denier' email, possibly they aren't on the same intellectual plain as me.

No, they tend to be smarter, less paranoid and less hysterical. With some "Revisionist" exceptions, of course.

>>The CODOH folks would have absolutely pointed that out...

Paranoid as those cowardly creatures are about their anonymity, that’s a given.

>> 'course they never would have stooped to such a puerile stunt.

Sure, they’re all nice folks who exchange hateful crap on a censored "discussion" forum.

>> The tactic of contacting someone's place of business and referring to them as a 'holocaust denier.

That was a tactic only insofar as it improved my chances of getting a response.

>>Also the tactic of obtaining and publishing personal information (as Sergey did to me).

Where again did he do that? Please point out the link. I like to know what I’m talking about.

>>Are you just plain stupid?

Don’t project your meager intellectual capacities.

>>How many times do I have to say it. It's standard smear tactics,

What, calling a disgusting Holocaust denier like "Lamb Supreme" (aka "Sean Lamb", "rossiabroad", "rodohcodohwatchwatch", "Lurkerthe", "Sophie", etc.) a disgusting Holocaust denier? That’s a plain statement of fact, nothing more and nothing less.

>>you did it, then published the letter now you won't own up to it.

Now you lost me. What am I supposed to not be owning up to?

>> All of 'em

Where have we met before, Butch?

>> Don't know what that's supposed to mean but this lazy man's posting technique is definitely the way to rebut! Thanks for the tip.

You’re welcome. Now please explain the "lazy" part.

>>Well, you have to keep yelling fire 'till someone responds.

Like a spoiled child or an incurable hysteric, right?

>>Sure would have been easier if you guys had addressed these issues sooner.

What, did someone take the liberty of leaving the spoiled child screaming for its lollipop? I’m shocked.

>The blog has several purposes, which are mentioned under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/03/intention-and-explanation.html

>>OK, thank you... now why don't you do that?

What have we not done?

>> The only claim (which wasn't really a claim at all but a request for dialogue) I have seen come through you blog recently is the very civil queries of ngoodgame. By the way "every" is a superlative. JH had trouble with that one too.

You should read through this blog with more time and attention, then. And please mind that this is a blog, not a discussion forum. It’s was made for writing articles. If you want discussion, RODOH is the more proper place.

>>If you can't deal with every (i.e. all), could you maybe deal with some of them? Or even one?

I suggest you go through all discussions that have taken place on this blog and make a list of issues you think were not or not adequately addressed by its members. I don’t think you’ll find many, but give it a try, and then post that list on a RODOH thread. It should make for an entertaining discussion.

Ah, and I thought there was a difference between dealing with controversies (which we do here all the time) and entertaining them. "Revisionist" controversies are bullshit throughout, so don’t expect anyone here to entertain any of them.

>No, the standard response to the nonsense your kind produces is to argumentatively dissect that nonsense. Of course we may also call you what we think you are and treat you like we think your behavior merits. If you can’t deal with that, stay out.

>> Now that's an idea... but then you won't have any comments (except from each other).

What, are "Revisionists" such delicate flowers? If so, tough luck. This is a blog and not a discussion forum, after all.

>> Worthless troll? And you know this how?

From your behavior I have been observing.

>>Did I not sign your impotent petition? Do trolls usually become that involved?

A step away from trolling, bravo! Keep on that way.

>>However, I'm going to allow that what you what you said you were going to write and what actually went up is probably very similar. I probably should have read it closer. Maybe I was caught up in the spirit of cooperation but I should have realized that it would be nothing with any real merit.

Actually it has the merit of high principle, my friend. People who consider your ideas nonsensical and disgusting nevertheless campaign for your right to express those ideas, because they genuinely believe in free speech.

>>BTW, you do realize that it will be completely ignored by the first bureaucrat who sees it as the ramblings of an idiot.

That would probably happen if it were worded your way, and rightly so.

>>What's your projection? 20 signatures?

We’ll see.

>>It will end up in the trash anyway because there is no way to determine the veracity of a "signature".

We’ll see.

>So, how is this more «potent» than my petition text?

>> Well for one thing, it doesn't include that inane quote you are so font of

That’s all? A rather lame explanation, even if the quote was as «inane» as you call it. Actually it’s author caught the essence of the matter in a nutshell: "Revisionists" are a bunch of sorry dumb fucks and shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted for being a bunch of sorry dumb fucks.

> Just click the link under "Intention and Explanation". Are you in the whining business?

>> All I said was I never found it, I never said it wasn't there, Because you knew exactly where it was -- it's your fucking website -- doesn't mean the casual reader can find it. Put it on your home page if you're so intellectually honest.

So now you’re accusing us of hiding our own articles from the readers they were written for, and that just because they don’t appear on the front page but under a link from the front page? I’m becoming seriously worried about your mental health, my friend.

>> You're positively sure it would have ended up in the rubbish bin?

In a country where legislation against Holocaust denial is enforced, what else could one reasonably expect?

>>You live in Portugal but have first hand knowledge of how the German government handles internal matters -- you are an impressive guy!

I am a German national, I studied in Germany, and I have made myself familiar with German hate-speech legislation and the controversy surrounding it, by reading stuff like the article that contains the quote in my petition text. So yes, I think I have some knowledge about «how the German government handles internal matters».

>>Do you think they will act on your 20 signature petition?

I hope to obtain more than 20 signatures, and I also hope to obtain at least a response from the entities the petition will be forwarded to. Even if achieves no change, it will still be a statement. Don’t you think it’s worth while to make a statement?

>> I signed the fucking petition, what else do you want?

Well, if you could obtain some more signatures ...

>>And I have said, I probably did not read it close enough.

Let that be a lesson for the future.

>>I've already signed the fucking petition, what else do you want?

See above.

>>Do you genuinely consider that crap petition to be "campaign for (my) your right to throw (my) your bullshit around"?

Definitely.

>>Grow up.

So you consider free speech to be a cause of the immature? CODOH webmaster Hargis seems to hold the same opinion, which is why he always has the censoring scissor at hand.

>> Well, I did say I'd use the phrase "limp-dick" (which it is) but I probably won't. The CODOH folks will figure it out on their own. Check "New Postings in a day or so and you'll know exactly how I presented it to them.

I’m dying of curiosity. :-)

>> Plus given your tactics, they are going to be reluctant to identify then selves to the likes of you in any way, shape, or form since you have already demonstrated that you have zero compunction about emailing employers and the like.

No, I would only have demonstrated that had I acted in the conviction that "Lamb Supreme" was actually David Phillips.

>I have posted it already.

>> Yes you have. Let me rephrase it, I don't care if you send it or not.

That’s no surprise. You don’t seem to care much about anti-denial laws being revoked. From your point of view that’s wholly understandable, of course.

>Actually I don’t think revocation of hate speech laws would serve the "Revisionist" cause at all. On the contrary.

>> That's because you are not a logical thinker.

No, that’s because I have observed for several years how "Revisionists" capitalize on whining about those oh-so-frightful "thought crimes laws". On the accompanying RODOH thread under

http://p102.ezboard.com/A-Petition-to-the-German-Legislator-/frodohforumfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2019.topic

a poster has just expressed the same observation as follows:

«These turds have no interest whatsoever in having the law changed. Had they, they would have done it long ago. This is the only issue upon which they can whine like stuck pigs. They piss and whine and moan ad nauseam about it because it's there... And they want to keep it there so they can piss and whine and moan. Otherwise they've got sh@t. imagine CODOH without without having this issue... Nothing but a bunch of cranks arguing about forgeries....»

>You don’t have to spell out your ignorant Jew-hating fantasies, they have become clear enough already.

>> Yes, in your pathetic little mind.

Now that’s what I call projection.

>>BTW, do you disagree with me or not? More people were systematically murdered under Stalin than ever died in concentration camps

Not quite. For comparisons of Hitler’s and Stalin’s killing records see this thread:

http://p102.ezboard.com/States-of-Terror-/frodohforumfrm12.showMessage?topicID=246.topic

and this site:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

>>but that seems to have been relegated to past history.

I don’t think so. I recently bought what seems to be an excellent book about the subject, GULAG by Anne Applebaum. Have you read it?

>>What's with the proliferation of holocaust museums 60 years later?

I agree with you in that the Nazi genocide of the Jews is being overemphasized in the media and in public discussion, to the detriment of other equally horrible crimes including those of Stalin and those committed by the Nazis against non-Jews (I have written about the latter in a blog article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/08/one-might-think-that.html ). I can even tell you that this overemphasizing of the Nazi genocide of the Jews pisses me off. But I consider it the most imbecile reaction to discomfort with that overemphasis to challenge the factuality of that genocide, not only because such challenging is completely unreasonable in view of the evidence, but also because it is counterproductive in that it further draws attention to these events and generates an interest in them that, unfortunately, also plays into the hands of those who may be seen as trying to hammer the memory of these events into everybody’s life and conscience while causing other similar events to be forgotten. I, for instance, didn’t know much about and wasn’t much interested in the Holocaust before coming upon internet "Revisionism", and it was only revulsion at that inane denial of historical facts that caused me to concern myself with and expand my knowledge on the subject. If "Revisionists" were not such blockheaded fanatics, they would long have recognized how counterproductive their efforts to get rid of the Holocaust’s memory are, and accordingly cut their propagandistic bullshit.

>I wouldn’t look forward to that day if I were you. Without hate speech laws in Germany, you’ll have one excuse less for the miserable results of "Revisionist research". And you’ll also have one less pretext for whining and portraying yourselves as poor darling victims of infamous "persecution". The day these laws are revoked you will miss them dearly, trust me.

>> Maybe you have a point. Censorship has long been a tenant of western civilization. Possibly we could even burn a few books to further suppress thought-crimes?

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but your comment has about nothing to do with mine.

>>Trust you? Are you shitting me. Maybe I'll send you my home address since I could be sure you wouldn't abuse it in any way.

Don’t worry. All I would do with your home address is look you up if I should one day come to Ole’ Bama for any reason. See if you’re really the gun-toting red-neck in a pickup truck that I suspect you to be. :-)

Jonathan Harrison said...

Jonnie Hargis has modified and deleted some of Butch's posts on the Cesspit, so Butch's whining about censorship is doubly ironic.

Butch said...

JH,

Yeah, the deleted post, ironically had to do with you.

I posted a screen-shot of your "A Note to Bankdraft" where you attempt to acquit yourself of an earlier lie (but you fucked up the English) and the CODOH moderator rightly pointed out that your lack of linguistic acumen is not relevant to the topic of holocaust revisionism.

In case you are not familiar with the error (I pointed it out on your "A note to Bankdraft post), here it is again:

Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.

When it should have said:

Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.

In other words inclusion of the prefix "anti" forms a double negative and effectively states HC's policy as being pro-revisionism laws.

Pretty shabby work for a bunch of PhDs... or maybe it was intentional.

The CODOH moderator also noted that since you identified a "Jonnie Hargis" as a moderator when in fact there is no "Jonnie Hargis" even registered as a member at COHOH.

Most posters at any forum choose to use a pseudonym (either for artistic or privacy reasons) and should be addressed as such.

HC long ago -- perhaps never -- held much stock in ethics so I'm sure it came natural to you try and "expose" someone who has the gall to express his or her right to free speech.

I'm wondering if the RODOH moderators would have been as diligent? What do you think? I still have the screen-shot so maybe I'll go over there and try it.

Butch

Truth said...

Wow, such a true, free and honest debating revisionist that he even defends his own censorship. Your post was not deleted because of it being "off Holocaust topic." Had there been such a policy, Potpie's post on Harrison's "Guide to Proper Capitalization", which only attacks Harrison, and says NOTHING of the Holocaust would have been removed long ago.
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=4705

May I ask why you did not post a link to the Holocaust Controversies? In what intellectual standard or judgement is that honest or fair?

Butch said...

Truth,

I certainly owe you no explanation but I'll provide one since you asked -- no matter how sarcastically.

The deleted post (there were actually two, both said the same thing but when I noticed the first one gone, I re-posted it) were deleted due to a privacy issue violation by JH and I inadvertently posted a screenshot that made this available at CODOH.

I asked the same question concerning PotPie's "Guide to Proper Capitalization" and the moderator, rightly, responded (concerning PotPie's post):

"That previous thread started with a reference to CODOH's Bradley Smith."

Here is a screen-shot of the image I posted (which was subsequently deleted for the reasons given) followed by the moderator's explanation. If you require further proof, let me know. I am unclear what you mean about posting a link to the Holocaust Controversies? A link to what? I have no problem doing it, I just don't know what you want.

This is the original screenshot which shows JH used a private individuals name as opposed to his pseudonym.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img
524/9637
/capturewiz018yj0.jpg

Below is a screenshot of the message I received from the moderator. I am providing a screenshot as opposed to the text as you seem to be particularly skeptical of my veracity; perhaps you have been hanging around HC too long and are not accustomed to genuine integrity.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/9841
/capturewiz020jt1.jpg

What surprises me is that you would question such a policy? Surely, all forums are set up this way. Part of the format and popularity of forums is anonymity. HC is not a forum and may or may not have such a policy. If they do, they certainly do not enforce it; part of HC's "stock and trade" is specifically publishing private citizens personal information. In any case, is unwise (and unethical) to post personal information about another individual on the internet.

Hope that helps.

One question for you? My deletion issue was not mentioned until some 40 comments into the post, did you actually read through all that previous B.S. between Roberto and me to find it or are you some sort of shill for JH? Just asking.

BH

Butch said...

Truth,

I just tried the links and for whatever reason, they are being truncated. You may have to type in the entire link to view the screenshots, or try these.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9637/capturewiz018yj0.jpg

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/9841/capturewiz020jt1.jpg

B

P.S. Don't forget to answer my question.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Butch
>In other words inclusion of the prefix "anti" forms a double negative and effectively states HC's >policy as being pro-revisionism laws.

>Pretty shabby work for a bunch of PhDs... or maybe it was intentional.

That comment has me worried about your sanity, even more so than your lame rambling against the integrity of this blog’s contributors and your paranoia about our alleged policy of "specifically publishing private citizens personal information". Sure you’re all right?

I hope your "anti" confusion is just a linguistic one.

But that’s not why I’m writing to you. The reason why I write is the following announcement in your comment of January 14, 2008 4:09:00 AM:

«Check "New Postings in a day or so and you'll know exactly how I presented it to them.»

I have seen no such new posting so far. Did you have no time yet, or did your honorable intention fall victim to "Hannover" Hargis’ censoring scissor?

Butch said...

It's starting to get a bit difficult to follow, but my current comments are designated by three (3) arrows [>>>]

>>Yes but you did not know that

Well, I did know that "Lamb Supreme" – the fellow who falsely claimed to be David Phillips – is an inveterate liar. He had become sort of an old acquaintance by then.

>>> you failed to mention that.

>>and in any event, the use holocaust denier was totally uncalled for.

No, it was meant to point out the importance of the problem to HC and thus make sure that they would put me in contact with the real David Phillips, if they had someone by that name working for them.

>>> I intended to be civil but Jesus Fucking Christ, THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE IS EMPLOYED AT A CERTAIN FIRM. Further -- and bearing in mind I'm a dumb fuck -- could you not have verified the existence of "this person" without introducing the phrase 'holocaust denier' as part of the email?

>>>I was almost ready to concede this point because you have so consistently and vigorously defended it but I cannot because I have four children and I have literally caught them with their hand in the cookie-jar and they look me in the face and continue to deny it... just like you.

>>>God dammit, sent a fucking postal letter addressed to David Philips and if it is returned-- he doesn't work there! If you cannot spare the time for a postal letter, make simple inquiry (via email) how you might contact David Phillips. Why do you consistently assume I'm so stupid to accept your limp-dick explanation?

>>>I also visited Herbert Smith's website and David Phillips is not listed as an attorney -- that should have been a clue.

>> Yes but you did not know that when you wrote the email

The risk that "Lamb Supreme" might actually be David Phillips of Herbert Smith was negligible, for the reasons mentioned.

>>>Negligible does not equal "I knew".

>> Flimsiest of evidence concerning the person to whom you wrote the email, you fucking nitwit! Are you fucking retarded? Can you understand nothing? You get a name and address from some guy on the phone and decide to write his boss and accuse him of being an "odious fellow and a holocaust denier". You didn't even "suggest" he was a holocaust denier, you openly called him a HDer.

Are you that slow on the uptake, or are you just playing dumb? I got nothing from anyone on the phone. A well-known "Revisionist" troll touring RODOH under the handle of "Lamb Supreme", after having exhausted his previous handles "rossiabroad" and "Lurkerthe", claimed in a post to Nick Terry that he was a solicitor at Herbert Smith by the name of David Phillips. In subsequent discussions with me and others, the fellow got too personal for my taste, whereupon I insisted that he identify himself. On the thread

>>>The information I based my comments (and line of reasoning) on were from a COHOH post, which states in part:

[Quote]

"I had Roberto Muhlenkampf ring up a hostel I was staying at when in Germany demanding to speak with me.

As a joke I gave them a mates name as mine who I knew was both squeaky clean and reliable (and a sense of humour). A moderator from that forum [Presumably you] immediately sent at an email to his employer demanding to know why such a notorious denier was working for them.

[End quote]

>>> The CODOH posts suggests the information was exchanged via phone but if you say otherwise I believe you. I did not read the entire RODOH post because it was (knowingly) speciously initiated by JH and the bulk was childish banter between people with too much time on their hands.

I opened a poll with the topic:

‘Will our chief troll Lamb Supreme be man enough to duly reveal his identity and whereabouts?’

Here’s the exchange that followed:

"Lamb Supreme", post # 71:

«Remove this baiting thread to Siberian exile.

I am attempting to improve my behaviour but potty-mouth here keeps trying to drag me down to his gutter.»

Me, post # 8177:

«Actually "potty mouth" is trying to make LS behave like a gentleman for once in his wasted life.

Unsurprisingly, LS can't take that.»

"Lamb Supreme", post # 73:

«Well considering I have already told you that I am David Phillips, of Herbert Smith I really fail to see your point.

If you really don't believe I am David Phillips by all means contact Herbert Smith and blow my cover. But you are too cowardly to do that.

www.herbertsmith.com»

Me, post # 8178:

«You shouldn’t project your own fallacies onto your opponent, mate.»

"Lamb Supreme", post # 75:

«I see, so you really don't have any doubts that I am who I say I am and this is just a troll.

If you think I am lying about who I am and who I work show the courage of your convictions and contact them.»

Me, post # 8179:

«Nothing easier than that, mate. Here’s a copy of the message I just sent them:

Quote:

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:31:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Guadalupe Salcedo" cortagravatas@yahoo.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Mr. David Phillips
To: contact@herbertsmith.com

Dear Sirs,

My name is Roberto Muehlenkamp, and I am a German citizen domiciled in Portugal.

I am writing to you in my capacity as a moderator of a historical discussion forum that you may find under p102.ezboard.com/brodohforum . I thought it might interest you to know that a rather unpleasant character, a Holocaust denier posting under the alias «Lamb Supreme», among others, has claimed to be one of your attorneys or solicitors, by the name of David Phillips.

As I believe this to be a false claim, I hereby kindly ask you to forward this message to Mr. David Phillips, in case you have an attorney or solicitor by that name, so that he may contact me and clear up this matter. Should there be no David Phillips at Herbert Smith LLP, your communication in this sense will be sufficient clarification.

«Lamb Supreme» first claimed to be Mr. David Phillips at Herbert Smith in his post # 11 under p102.ezboard.com/frodohfo...mp;stop=39 . He repeated the claim in his post # 73 under p102.ezboard.com/Will-our...=414.topic .

I thank you very much for your attention and remain,

With my best regards,
Roberto Muehlenkamp»


It shouldn’t be too hard to understand what led to my contacting Herbert Smith (the fellow’s "go ask them if you don’t believe me" – insistence) and what my motivation was (showing him up as the liar I knew him to be).

To be sure, I called the guy an "odious fellow" (or, more precisely, "a rather unpleasant character") and a Holocaust denier. I did so because, from what I had seen of him for quite a while prior to this occasion, both epithets fit him like a glove. You may want to argue that "Revisionists" are not Holocaust deniers, but to me both terms are synonyms, and who produces the crap that this fellow has been boring his fellow posters with certainly qualifies for both.

I’ll assume in your benefit that you didn’t read the above-quoted RODOH exchange before firing away. You seem to be rather sloppy reader altogether.

>>> Again, this was not my understand of the sequence of events based on what was posted at CODOH and which you (I think) read but did not deny. I will accept that I may well be wrong in this assumption.

>>>The sloppy reader comment reader could equally be applied to you for not adequately reading the CODOH comment (which I am almost certain ended up on RODOH) from which I based my premise.

>>>No, I was not privy to that exchange -- the internet is a rather large place. I based my response on a phone call you admittedly made to a hostel/hotel in Germany and information posted at CODOH.

>>>All of which is well beside the point. You did not need to include "holocaust denier" in the initial email. It seems to me you would have first concerned yourself with verifying identity. You called him a "holocaust denier" which I will go to my grave believing was meant to cause harm.

>>>Holocaust denier is a de-facto pejorative and meant to harm and there was no reason to use it and for you to continue to suggest that it was a reasonable statement, or according to you, "necessary", is absolutely insulting to me and any thinking person.

>> But you didn't actually know that for a fact.

The risk that "Lamb Supreme" might actually be David Phillips of Herbert Smith was negligible, for the reasons mentioned.

>> If you were certain, why bother writing the letter?

To have positive proof that would allow me to expose the fellow as the liar I knew he was. Think before asking.

>>> Initially you said it was to warn the innocent fellow (David Phillips) that his name was being malingered.

>>Oh, that's right, to warn him his name was being used by some hate-mongers and I suppose that's also you opened the email with "holocaust denier"?

No, calling the real David Phillips’ attention to the fact that some asshole was impersonating him was but the secondary purpose. The primary purpose was to show that "Lamb Supreme" had lied about his identity.

>>And why you chose to contact his boss and not him?

Because I didn’t have David Phillips’ e-mail address, smartass.

>>>You could have obtained it exactly the same way you determined the email address of the firm. Just add: Attention David Phillips. Dumb fuck.

>> First of all are you familiar with the word "flawed"? I have to ask because you appear not to be.

Cut the crap.

>>>Sure, if you will stop with the infernal "word parsing"

>>You continue to defend your actions when the email could have been submitted without the "holocaust denier" label attached and would have served the exact same purpose.

I don’t think Herbert Smith would have given David Phillips my contact if I had just gone like, "Hi, my name is this-and-that, I’d like to talk to your David Phillips, so please ask him to contact me." I’d probably still be waiting.

>>>Cut the crap. Your original email sounded quite professional so why would you resort to a school-girl approach when trying to contact David Phillips? Emails to law firms -- especially those containing the phrase "holocaust denier" generally get answered.

>> BTW, did you make an attempt to determine if the fellow actually worked there or did you send the email straight to his boss.

I tried to find David Phillips’ e-mail. No luck.

>>> May because he doesn't work there?

>>Why did you not send it to him personally?

See above.

>>> I don't believe you. I could have determined it and you seem to think yourself more intelligent than me.

>> All of them indicate some sort of delusional or non standard thinking -- you decide which fits. I'm leaning toward #2 and #5.

Now all we need is an explanation whence you concluded on «some sort of delusional or non standard thinking». Being as you are a "Revisionist", I wouldn’t be surprised if you had simply projected the workings of your own mind.

>>> Yeah, I'm sure that's it. I'm probably mentally retarded too.

>> Yeah? And how would you respond when the judge asked you why you didn't send it directly to the person in question?

As I did above.

Well, with a judge I might keep the "smartass" to myself. :-)

>>> Again, I am faced with determining who is telling the truth. You post an authentic looking exchange (which I tend to believe) but I also have the word of someone I trust that this information was exchanged over the phone (or at least that's what the text suggests).

>> How would you respond to thinking/logical people when asked why you didn't send it directly to the person in question? As a minimum you could have made email inquiry if the fellow worked there.

I’d probably still be waiting for the answer. Why on earth should an outfit as important as Herbert Smith reply to some nobody’s query whether so-and-so works there?

>>> Why would they not? A firm as large and prestigious as Herbert Smith surely has a public relations department and would have responded to an innocuous request for contact information on of their lawyers. For all they would have know it could been the opening negations of a $10M contract.

>>Jesus Christ, do you think no one else has a brain!?

Well, I don’t think much of yours.

>>>Yeah, that certainly helps facilitate communication.

>>The only thing more egregious than you action is your inane defense of it.

The only thing inane here is the fuss you keep making about my «egregious» action.

>>> I have explained that. I still believe you're being disingenuous as to your intentions for contacting DP's supervisor but I don't expect you to admit it. Do you still maintain that the inclusion of "holocaust denier (... rather odious fellow..." is fine) was "necessary to accomplish your goal?

>> Word parsing, but I'll play along. When people are caught in a blatant lie, the accuser will often attach an adjective in front of the word liar. I chose "fucking". Live with it.

I don’t mind the «fucking». My point is that you haven’t caught me lying just because you claim you did.

>>> See above.

>>Impotent is a valid word, look it up. If you choose to make the connection to erectile dysfunction, that's your business.

The point here is that my explanation is not «impotent» just because you call it that. Strong words are no substitute for arguments.

>>>I misunderstood your objection to my choice of vocabulary. My error.

>> No, I've even said I may well post there but if your RODOH chums can't (or won't) even pick out the duplicity of your 'holocaust denier' email, possibly they aren't on the same intellectual plain as me.

No, they tend to be smarter, less paranoid and less hysterical. With some "Revisionist" exceptions, of course.

>>The CODOH folks would have absolutely pointed that out...

Paranoid as those cowardly creatures are about their anonymity, that’s a given.

>>> No they would not have glossed over such an obvious misrepresentation as your chums did at RODOH. No a single one of those erudite fucks bothered to say, "Wonder why RM felt the need to include 'holocaust denier' in his email?"

>> 'course they never would have stooped to such a puerile stunt.

Sure, they’re all nice folks who exchange hateful crap on a censored "discussion" forum.

>>> The site is not censored. They do on occasion eject foul-mouthed, argumentative fucks.

>> The tactic of contacting someone's place of business and referring to them as a 'holocaust denier.

That was a tactic only insofar as it improved my chances of getting a response.

>>Also the tactic of obtaining and publishing personal information (as Sergey did to me).

Where again did he do that? Please point out the link. I like to know what I’m talking about.

>>> No, I don't have time to do that, BUT how about this: why don't you ask him if he did it or not? If he says, "No", I will take the hour it will take to track it down. Fair? Also please direct me to the search feature at HC, I can't find it... but then again I'm a mole.

>>Are you just plain stupid?

Don’t project your meager intellectual capacities.

>>> Well, I think we have been over this. I got my information from a different source than you. But for the tenth time, 'holocaust denier was not necessary but apparently you are convinced it was integral to your point.

>>>Possibly my technical background gives me a different perspective than your liberal arts (I'm guessing) background. An engineer would have gotten to the bottom of this a long, long, long time ago.

>>How many times do I have to say it. It's standard smear tactics,

What, calling a disgusting Holocaust denier like "Lamb Supreme" (aka "Sean Lamb", "rossiabroad", "rodohcodohwatchwatch", "Lurkerthe", "Sophie", etc.) a disgusting Holocaust denier? That’s a plain statement of fact, nothing more and nothing less.

>>you did it, then published the letter now you won't own up to it.

Now you lost me. What am I supposed to not be owning up to?

>>> You initiated a wantonly harmful letter to a person's place of business but fail to take responsibility for it choosing instead to continue with the puerile cookie-jar defense.

>> All of 'em

Where have we met before, Butch?

>>>Cut the crap.

>> Don't know what that's supposed to mean but this lazy man's posting technique is definitely the way to rebut! Thanks for the tip.

You’re welcome. Now please explain the "lazy" part.

>>>Cut he crap.

>>Well, you have to keep yelling fire 'till someone responds.

Like a spoiled child or an incurable hysteric, right?

>>> If there is an actual fire, it seems a reasonable course of action.

>>Sure would have been easier if you guys had addressed these issues sooner.

What, did someone take the liberty of leaving the spoiled child screaming for its lollipop? I’m shocked.

What surprises me is this thing started out civil now it's back to RM the punk.

>>> Does insulting my intelligence carry the same weight as calling you a punk? Reread your posting and you'll see it is full of condescension and name calling.

>The blog has several purposes, which are mentioned under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/03/intention-and-explanation.html

>>OK, thank you... now why don't you do that?

What have we not done?

>>>Cut he crap

>> The only claim (which wasn't really a claim at all but a request for dialogue) I have seen come through you blog recently is the very civil queries of ngoodgame. By the way "every" is a superlative. JH had trouble with that one too.

You should read through this blog with more time and attention, then. And please mind that this is a blog, not a discussion forum. It’s was made for writing articles. If you want discussion, RODOH is the more proper place.

>>> Good point and I have repeatedly said that I will indeed post at RODOH -- give me sometime.

>>If you can't deal with every (i.e. all), could you maybe deal with some of them? Or even one?

I suggest you go through all discussions that have taken place on this blog and make a list of issues you think were not or not adequately addressed by its members. I don’t think you’ll find many, but give it a try, and then post that list on a RODOH thread. It should make for an entertaining discussion.

>>>Well... off the top of mu head, I'm wondering why JH abandoned ngoodgame's reasonable request for a joint renunciation on of anti-holocaust laws? But, I'll tell you now I'm not going to scour your blog for inconsistencies, I don't have the time or inclination.

>>>Besides, when I do unearth something, I would just get into another of these protracted double-talk debates with you or another hysterical fuck.

Ah, and I thought there was a difference between dealing with controversies (which we do here all the time) and entertaining them. "Revisionist" controversies are bullshit throughout, so don’t expect anyone here to entertain any of them.

>>>If you are not a native English speaker, then I salute you for your flawless use of the language but "entertain" is a valid word in this context.

>>>I am seriously asking this: you consider ngoodgane is a troll and therefore dismiss him with insults? To me he appeared to be one of the more civil posters I've read (at HC) in awhile. He fucking begged you for information. When he didn't get anything even approaching a dialogue, he closed by asking for a mutual agreement to renounce holocaust denial laws (not like that B.S. you posted) and got completely ignored.

>>>Possibly you guys are clairvoyant and can identify "trolls" by some sixth sense?

>No, the standard response to the nonsense your kind produces is to argumentatively dissect that nonsense. Of course we may also call you what we think you are and treat you like we think your behavior merits. If you can’t deal with that, stay out.

>> Now that's an idea... but then you won't have any comments (except from each other).

What, are "Revisionists" such delicate flowers? If so, tough luck. This is a blog and not a discussion forum, after all.

>>> Fair enough.

>> Worthless troll? And you know this how?

From your behavior I have been observing.

>>Did I not sign your impotent petition? Do trolls usually become that involved?

A step away from trolling, bravo! Keep on that way.

>>> Fuck off

>>>However, I'm going to allow that what you what you said you were going to write and what actually went up is probably very similar. I probably should have read it closer. Maybe I was caught up in the spirit of cooperation but I should have realized that it would be nothing with any real merit.

Actually it has the merit of high principle, my friend. People who consider your ideas nonsensical and disgusting nevertheless campaign for your right to express those ideas, because they genuinely believe in free speech.

>>>How is it possible that you can make such an absurd statement? There are fucking people in prison for doing exactly what you suggest people "support and defend".

>>BTW, you do realize that it will be completely ignored by the first bureaucrat who sees it as the ramblings of an idiot.

That would probably happen if it were worded your way, and rightly so.

>>> But your bit of prose will make it all the way to the president?

>>What's your projection? 20 signatures?

We’ll see.

>>>How many are shills?

>>It will end up in the trash anyway because there is no way to determine the veracity of a "signature".

We’ll see.

>>>Are you actually suggesting that it will have meaning or will be acted on?

>So, how is this more «potent» than my petition text?

>> Well for one thing, it doesn't include that inane quote you are so fond of.

>>>Well the quote is the bulk of the petition so it's naturally what I address.

That’s all? A rather lame explanation, even if the quote was as «inane» as you call it. Actually it’s author caught the essence of the matter in a nutshell: "Revisionists" are a bunch of sorry dumb fucks and shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted for being a bunch of sorry dumb fucks.

>>> Wow, that certainly advanced the conversation. I'll just counter with William Shakespeare's, "The lady doth protest too much methinks."?

>>>Point being, what one man decides to say (your signature quote) has no bearing except it makes dumb fucks like you feel better

> Just click the link under "Intention and Explanation". Are you in the whining business?

>> All I said was I never found it, I never said it wasn't there, Because you knew exactly where it was -- it's your fucking website -- doesn't mean the casual reader can find it. Put it on your home page if you're so intellectually honest.

So now you’re accusing us of hiding our own articles from the readers they were written for, and that just because they don’t appear on the front page but under a link from the front page? I’m becoming seriously worried about your mental health, my friend.

>>>Cut he crap. All I said was I didn't find it. Fuck off.

>> You're positively sure it would have ended up in the rubbish bin?

In a country where legislation against Holocaust denial is enforced, what else could one reasonably expect?

>>>But you seem to hold out hope that your petition -- which is also a petition against holocaust denial -- will somehow make a difference? Doesn't make sense.

>>You live in Portugal but have first hand knowledge of how the German government handles internal matters -- you are an impressive guy!

I am a German national, I studied in Germany, and I have made myself familiar with German hate-speech legislation and the controversy surrounding it, by reading stuff like the article that contains the quote in my petition text. So yes, I think I have some knowledge about «how the German government handles internal matters».

>>> I will accept that.

>>Do you think they will act on your 20 signature petition?

I hope to obtain more than 20 signatures, and I also hope to obtain at least a response from the entities the petition will be forwarded to. Even if achieves no change, it will still be a statement. Don’t you think it’s worth while to make a statement?

>>> Yes I do. But it's so prejudiced, you might as well have said "we denounce beating children with metal rods". But, yes I do. That's why I signed the thing you stooge fuck (sorry, that slipped out).

>>And I have said, I probably did not read it close enough.

Let that be a lesson for the future.

>>> I will accept that. I did, though, think the inane quote was part of your standard signature and not the crux of the petition... but in future, I will read the posts more carefully and I suggest you do the same as some of your logic is quite illogical.

>>>I've already signed the fucking petition, what else do you want?

See above.

>>Do you genuinely consider that crap petition to be "campaign for (my) your right to throw (my) your bullshit around"?

Definitely.

>>Grow up.

So you consider free speech to be a cause of the immature? CODOH webmaster Hargis seems to hold the same opinion, which is why he always has the censoring scissor at hand.

>>> That's quite a stretch. I have never personally communicated with Harigis but he seems fair enough... especially compared to the HC policy of revealing personal information. Do you consider that ethical?

>> Well, I did say I'd use the phrase "limp-dick" (which it is) but I probably won't. The CODOH folks will figure it out on their own. Check "New Postings" in a day or so and you'll know exactly how I presented it to them.

I’m dying of curiosity. :-)

>>> I'm drafting it mow. While I fully admit that you warned me of what you were going to submit to the German legislature, I admitted that I didn't read it carefully enough. Especially the quote from which I took to be part of your "signature".

I'm still working on a way to broach the topic with them. You have already demonstrated a propensity to "hurt" people so I can't predict their reaction but I'll try and word it so as to obtain maximum response but to ask someone to sign a petition that specifically calls them "stupid" is a tall order. Check back in a day or two any you can lay you curiosity to rest.

>> Plus given your tactics, they are going to be reluctant to identify then selves to the likes of you in any way, shape, or form since you have already demonstrated that you have zero compunction about emailing employers and the like.

No, I would only have demonstrated that had I acted in the conviction that "Lamb Supreme" was actually David Phillips.

>>> and the Harigis "outing"?

>I have posted it already.

>> Yes you have. Let me rephrase it, I don't care if you send it or not.

That’s no surprise. You don’t seem to care much about anti-denial laws being revoked. From your point of view that’s wholly understandable, of course.

>Actually I don’t think revocation of hate speech laws would serve the "Revisionist" cause at all. On the contrary.

>> That's because you are not a logical thinker.

No, that’s because I have observed for several years how "Revisionists" capitalize on whining about those oh-so-frightful "thought crimes laws". On the accompanying RODOH thread under

http://p102.ezboard.com/A-Petition-to-the-German-Legislator-/frodohforumfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2019.topic

a poster has just expressed the same observation as follows:

«These turds have no interest whatsoever in having the law changed. Had they, they would have done it long ago. This is the only issue upon which they can whine like stuck pigs. They piss and whine and moan ad nauseam about it because it's there... And they want to keep it there so they can piss and whine and moan. Otherwise they've got sh@t. imagine CODOH without without having this issue... Nothing but a bunch of cranks arguing about forgeries....»

>>> Again, your lack of logic shows. Why were these laws enacted in the first place? Would you have me believe it was at the suggestion of Revisionist? And if it helps revisionist, then it must hurt the believers and yet you submit such an impotent renunciation petition?

>>> Anyone who doesn't take the time to "spell check" looses a few points in my book. Besides, who is this fuck and what does he know?

>You don’t have to spell out your ignorant Jew-hating fantasies, they have become clear enough already.

>> Yes, in your pathetic little mind.

Now that’s what I call projection.

>>> You're a psychologist too? In any event, it would be a "mirror" projection since you first used the line. Dumb ass.

>>BTW, do you disagree with me or not? More people were systematically murdered under Stalin than ever died in concentration camps

Not quite. For comparisons of Hitler’s and Stalin’s killing records see this thread:

http://p102.ezboard.com/States-of-Terror-/frodohforumfrm12.showMessage?topicID=246.topic

and this site:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

>>but that seems to have been relegated to past history.

I don’t think so. I recently bought what seems to be an excellent book about the subject, GULAG by Anne Applebaum. Have you read it?

>>> Concerning the Applebaum book you say, "I recently bought what seems to be an excellent book about the subject, GULAG by Anne Applebaum.

>>>"... seems to be an excellent book... " leads me to believe you yourself have not read it. And while were at it, cut the crap, when was the last time you heard ANYTHING about the Stalin holocaust? (Other than Applebaum's book).

>>> Have I read it? No. I have never even heard of it. I am in a technical field so I simply have no time for obscure GULAG books by Jewish writers. I did read The Gulag Archipelago.

>>>This is a long-shot but how often does Ms. Applebaum compare the Stalin pogroms to the holocaust?

>>What's with the proliferation of holocaust museums 60 years later?

I agree with you in that the Nazi genocide of the Jews is being overemphasized in the media and in public discussion, to the detriment of other equally horrible crimes including those of Stalin and those committed by the Nazis against non-Jews (I have written about the latter in a blog article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/08/one-might-think-that.html ). I can even tell you that this overemphasizing of the Nazi genocide of the Jews pisses me off. But I consider it the most imbecile reaction to discomfort with that overemphasis to challenge the factuality of that genocide, not only because such challenging is completely unreasonable in view of the evidence, but also because it is counterproductive in that it further draws attention to these events and generates an interest in them that, unfortunately, also plays into the hands of those who may be seen as trying to hammer the memory of these events into everybody’s life and conscience while causing other similar events to be forgotten. I, for instance, didn’t know much about and wasn’t much interested in the Holocaust before coming upon internet "Revisionism", and it was only revulsion at that inane denial of historical facts that caused me to concern myself with and expand my knowledge on the subject. If "Revisionists" were not such blockheaded fanatics, they would long have recognized how counterproductive their efforts to get rid of the Holocaust’s memory are, and accordingly cut their propagandistic bullshit.

>>> Well, we just disagree on this. To me the "big picture" is against the Jewish holocaust. In any event, your illogic is again showing if you seriously think that Revisionist are drawing more attention to the holocaust than Jews themselves.

1) The "death camps" were (by and large) liberated by the Soviets who had 20M excellent reasons to hate the Germans and, therefore, in my opinion had every reason to embellish their findings. Said another way, the Soviets were an evil empire (a Ronald Reagan quote)... except what they said about the Germans concerning the 'death camps'.

2) Six million of these brilliant Jews systematically walked into sure death camps? The Jews have quite an extensive "grapevine" (communication system) yet they couldn't make the point known to one another that "something bad was afoot"?

3) This is not he first time Jews have been expelled from a country or region (in fact it is a very real part of their history), most recently, Uganda. The history of Jewish usury -- leading to economic instability and an "economically imprisoned" society -- is well documented. The term Jew/Shylock is as old as Shakespeare. Actually it was in common usage by Shakespeare's time. Jewish usury is mentioned extensively in the Arabian Nights which was written circa AD 800-900.

>I wouldn’t look forward to that day if I were you. Without hate speech laws in Germany, you’ll have one excuse less for the miserable results of "Revisionist research". And you’ll also have one less pretext for whining and portraying yourselves as poor darling victims of infamous "persecution". The day these laws are revoked you will miss them dearly, trust me.

>> Maybe you have a point. Censorship has long been a tenant of western civilization. Possibly we could even burn a few books to further suppress thought-crimes?

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but your comment has about nothing to do with mine.

>> No I didn't notice. Your statement is: "Without hate speech laws in Germany, you’ll have one excuse less for the miserable results of "Revisionist research".

>>>Further, miserable results of "Revisionist research" is just flat out disingenuous. If it wasn't for revisionist, we'd still be debating "shrunken heads" and Jew-soap. These people are not automatically anti-semites. In many, many, many cases, they are trained scholars who see an overt inconsistency. I don't expect you to accept that because it has been inculcated in you that anyone who questions the holocaust is an anti-semite. You are not the independent thinker you believe yourself to be.

>>>You are telling me that I will rue the day revisionist laws are overturned? Probably not, I think putting scholars in prison is a great idea.

>>>Another long-shot, do you believe the Nuremberg trials to have been balanced?

>>Trust you? Are you shitting me. Maybe I'll send you my home address since I could be sure you wouldn't abuse it in any way.

Don’t worry. All I would do with your home address is look you up if I should one day come to Ole’ Bama for any reason. See if you’re really the gun-toting red-neck in a pickup truck that I suspect you to be. :-)

>>> If you feel free to spout stereotypes about 'Ol Bama, would you find disagreeable if I suggested Jews are historically usurious?

>>> A more likely reason for you coming to 'Ol Bama would be to take advantage of one of the most advanced medical research facilities on the planet (The University of Alabama at Birmingham) or maybe to visit the facility directly responsible for putting some half-dozen Americans on the moon (The Huntsville Space and Rocket Center). Other than that, yeah, we mostly lynch blacks.

>>>And when I visit Germany again, maybe you can show me the legislation building where the censorship laws were voted on?

>>>Ask Sergey if he ever posted personal information about me (or anyone) and let me know how he answers. If he lies and says "No", I'll search the archives to find it but I won't expect an apology once I locate it.

>>>He posted, IP address, geographical information, and the amount of time I spent at the site. In other words, everything he had access to.

>>>Other than that, I cannot continue this lengthy correspondence. "Reasonable men can disagree and remain quite reasonable".

>>>While non-admissible, I find a country that produced Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Beethoven, Kant, Max Planck, Mozart, not to mention the scientists, incapable of a genocide on the scale you suggest.

>>>This is my last correspondence under this format. I may (time permitting) post at RODOH.

Butch said...

RH,

You took a week to get your petition posted and it was already written so fuck-off.

No, it was not deleted but I have decided against posting something that asks people to sign a petition that specifically refers to them as ignorant or stupid (or whatever the inane quote is).

I will bring it to the intention of the CODOH folk that a petition exists at HC and let them decide.

BTW, you are wrong about the double negative. Read it again.

B

Jonathan Harrison said...

Just to correct one point in butch's insane drivel: we are not breaching Hargis's privacy by referring to Hannover as Hargis. He revealed this identity openly in a public email sent to the Upstream mailing list:

http://andrew.mathis.net/jonnie.jpg

Hargis is also abusing a public office by administering a hate-site from his publicly-owned computer at the UCLA, where he works as a university library assistant.

We have every right to attack his hypocrisy and anti-semitism, both of which are prominently displayed at the Cesspit on a daily basis. He attacks HC members at the Cesspit behind an alias that he lies about, then he censors and deletes posts from HC members when we respond to his personal abuse by registering on that site. This has been well-documented with appropriate screenshots, most recently in two blogs that Andrew and I wrote in November and December 2007.

Butch said...

JH,

I never said you couldn't refer to anyone by any name you choose BUT revealing personal information about individuals is a violation of CODOH policy so when I posted a screenshot of your improperly worded "denial law" policy, I (not you) inadvertently violated policy and the post was rightfully deleted.

Jonathan I really should leave you alone because you aren't too sharp. I don't necessarily mean that as an insult but your conclusions are just plain bizarre.

I genuinely thought you were a 21 year old kid. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw you were a PhD. I can only assume the continued personal attacks against me are due to the spankings you have been receiving by me.

BTW, I realize that you were probably not the drafter of the improperly worded "denial-law" policy, I was just taking a cheap-shot at you not catching it.

B

P.S. Before you dash for the keyboard, keep in mind your earlier post:

"Butch, anyone reading your posts can see that you're a whining idiot. Now please fuck off and go play with your toys. Your abusive posts will get no further responses from me."

Jonathan Harrison said...

Andrew Mathis has asked me to add these points:

"(1) Hargis does what he does from his workplace, which is funded by California taxpayer money. Ergo, those people of California (which has one of the higher Jewish populations in the States) deserve to know how their taxes are being spent.

(2) Furthermore, Hargis is in clear violation of the university computing policy at UCLA. See:

http://www.geocities.com/hargis_ucla/

He's also in violation of U.S. law, at least until the statute at hand is challenged in the courts.

(3) Hargis has a very long history (going on nine years now) of censoring the posts of those who disagree with him -- even those who disagree even a little bit -- and then doing a victory dance. He also has a history of banning people from posting and then baiting them from the comfort of his perceived anonymity. Any of these things would get a man a mouthful of bloody chiclets were the person in front of you. Hargis needed to know that he could be found -- and was found -- because he was very pompous but very stupid.

(4) Finally, he refused to debate on neutral territory. Thus his cover had to be blown to smoke him out.

(5) Now: I have *ALWAYS* maintained that I would call off this, what Nick once called the "epic battle" between us two, if he would simply apologize for his behavior -- even pseudonymously. He refuses to do this also.

And so what if, at the Führerbunker, he doesn't use his real name? Does that put some obligation on we who are banned from his domain to call him by his dumb-ass nickname? Of course not. And as long as he continues to deny that he is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Jonnie Hargis, I refuse to call him "Hannover." Fuck him.

Besides, his information that I found on him was all in the public domain. He was just too God-damned stupid to cover his tracks. I got a rash of death threats years ago when I was "discovered" several years ago by Don Black and my address and phone number put on the Stormfront mailing list. I changed my phone number and have been unlisted ever since (over thirteen years). I haven't been bothered "in the real world" since, except for Fritz Berg and Michael Collins Piper trying (unsuccessfully) to get me fired.

And, don't forget (6) This is a dangerous game we play with some very dangerous people playing. I have a right to know who Hargis is and where he is in case legal action ever needs to be taken.

Well that's my $0.02.

a.m.

(Feel free to post this to the blog in the replies.)"

Truth said...

Butch,

When was I being sarcastic anywhere in my post?

As for Hannover's explanation that PotPie's thread came about from a discussion on Bradley Smith, so what? It's unrelated to the ACTUAL 'HOLOCAUST'. The reference to Smith was regarding his spelling of a literary figure. All the thread consists of is an childish attack on Harrison's grammar.

I do not need the screenshots, as I viewed your post when it appeared. In general, I doubt anyone and anything, and expect proof to be offered on many accounts. I believe in your present discussion, Roberto has placed his cards on the table for all to see (emails sent out, responses, prior discussions, etc...).

I also am not one who believes in breaking personal privacy. I have kept my name off line, and will continue to do so, yet it seems to me that Hannover has already blown his own cover. It is the only area discussed so far (that I have read) by Dr. Mathis where I am in agreement with him.

As to the link issue, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to refer to and attack an organization, post a screenshot of them, and not provide the url link to the website. When I posted a criticism of Harrison and his work, I directly linked to the relevant HC blog post. You did no such thing.
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=4566&highlight=holocaust+controversies

And to answer your question: I viewed your original CODOH post, and watched it disappear. I have not read the entire discussion, but have attempted to keep up with the major contentions.

Butch said...

Truth,

When was I being sarcastic anywhere in my post?

Well, the opening line sounds pretty sarcastic to me but if you say it wasn't, I'll accept that. Sorry.

As for Hannover's explanation that PotPie's thread came about from a discussion on Bradley Smith, so what? It's unrelated to the ACTUAL 'HOLOCAUST'. The reference to Smith was regarding his spelling of a literary figure. All the thread consists of is an childish attack on Harrison's grammar.

Truth, please, please let's try and understand each other without a lot of word parsing and half truths. I DID NOT DELETE THE POST, THE MODERATORS DID and they did it for the reasons I took great pains to explain to you. COHOH does not allow personal information to be posted and when I used Harrisons reference (screenshot), it did in fact contain personal information and was deleted.

Where is the misunderstanding? Concerning PotPie, I do not know why it was not deleted, I am not a moderator and the fact that it did link back to a comment made about Smith seemed reasonable enough to me NOT to delete it but any further information about the deletion policy will have to be directed at CODOH moderators.

Finally, you may have seen the original post (the one that was deleted) but you certainly didn't see the explanation the moderator provided me for his decision (unless you have access to my CODOH mailbox) which is what the second screen-shot showed. .


I do not need the screenshots, as I viewed your post when it appeared. In general, I doubt anyone and anything, and expect proof to be offered on many accounts. I believe in your present discussion, Roberto has placed his cards on the table for all to see (emails sent out, responses, prior discussions, etc...).

I also am not one who believes in breaking personal privacy. I have kept my name off line, and will continue to do so, yet it seems to me that Hannover has already blown his own cover. It is the only area discussed so far (that I have read) by Dr. Mathis where I am in agreement with him.

As to the link issue, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to refer to and attack an organization, post a screenshot of them, and not provide the url link to the website. When I posted a criticism of Harrison and his work, I directly linked to the relevant HC blog post. You did no such thing.
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=4566&highlight=holocaust+controversies

So my crime is that I did not link back to HC when I made the original post? Well, I guess I just fucked up. I personally did not consider it intellectual dishonest since it was to be posted at a site that was well familiar with Harrison and Holocause Controversies and the topic title was "Jonathan Harrison does it again" (a direct reference to PotPie's earlier post). I did not think to have it proofread by you. Sory.

And to answer your question: I viewed your original CODOH post, and watched it disappear. I have not read the entire discussion, but have attempted to keep up with the major contentions.

Truth, in order for you to discover my "deletion defense" in answer to your "Wow, such a true, free and honest debating revisionist that he even defends his own censorship. Your post was not deleted because of it being "off Holocaust topic.", you would have had to read some 40 (plus) comments deep into the "Another Note to Bankdraft", posted by Roberto. My question was did you read all the preceding comments or just scroll to the end where I tried to explain my self? If you did read the exchange, you will see that I have laid my cards on the table as well. You have tactility admitted that you did not go through all that reading. Possibly the "deletion topic" is posted somewhere else, maybe RODOH. I have not checked into this.

If you would bother opening the screen-shots (or at least the second one) you could read the actual words the moderator used to explain to me why he deleted my post -- I'm guessing you have not done this? He said he did it for privacy considerations and there was indeed a privacy issue involved.

If I have misunderstood your position, then I guess I have. You sure sound like you are attacking me (e.g. intellectually dishonest, Your post was not deleted because of it being "off Holocaust topic, etc.) but if you weren't, I'll accept that as well.


B

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>>>It's starting to get a bit difficult to follow, but my current comments are designated by three (3) arrows [>>>]

Yeah, this is not a discussion forum and the discussion software is accordingly poor. How about RODOH instead?

I won’t make it four arrows but just place my comment below each of your three-arrowed comments.

>>> you failed to mention that.

If you had read the RODOH thread where I posted a copy of my mail to Herbert Smith, you would have realized that "Lamb Supreme" and I were not exactly strangers.

>>> I intended to be civil but Jesus Fucking Christ, THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE IS EMPLOYED AT A CERTAIN FIRM.

It was not my intention to determine whether "Lamb Supreme" was David Phillips at Herbert Smith. I had no doubt that he was not. All I wanted was proof that he had lied.

>>>Further -- and bearing in mind I'm a dumb fuck -- could you not have verified the existence of "this person" without introducing the phrase 'holocaust denier' as part of the email?

I could have, but I figured that my chances to get an answer were better when exposing the issue right away.

>>>I was almost ready to concede this point because you have so consistently and vigorously defended it but I cannot because I have four children and I have literally caught them with their hand in the cookie-jar and they look me in the face and continue to deny it... just like you.

I’m not denying anything.

>>>God dammit, sent a fucking postal letter addressed to David Philips and if it is returned-- he doesn't work there! If you cannot spare the time for a postal letter, make simple inquiry (via email) how you might contact David Phillips. Why do you consistently assume I'm so stupid to accept your limp-dick explanation?

Frankly I don’t give a fuck if you accept my explanation, and you seem to be more paranoid than stupid. If I didn’t choose any of the methods you claim you would have chosen, that only means that I do things differently than you would, or that I considered the methods you’re suggesting to be ineffective, or that they simply didn’t occur to me at the time. It doesn’t mean that I intended to do Mr. David Phillips any harm.

>>>I also visited Herbert Smith's website and David Phillips is not listed as an attorney -- that should have been a clue.

David Phillips does work at Herbert Smith, otherwise he wouldn’t have contacted me. They just don’t have his name and e-mail on their site, presumably because he’s not important enough there. That’s why I was not able to get in touch with him except by contacting his employer.

>>>Negligible does not equal "I knew".

Well, I knew that "Lamb Supreme" was a liar. All that was missing was evidence to prove that to the RODOH audience.

>>>The information I based my comments (and line of reasoning) on were from a COHOH post, which states in part:

>>> [Quote]

>>>"I had Roberto Muhlenkampf ring up a hostel I was staying at when in Germany demanding to speak with me.

>>>As a joke I gave them a mates name as mine who I knew was both squeaky clean and reliable (and a sense of humour). A moderator from that forum [Presumably you] immediately sent at an email to his employer demanding to know why such a notorious denier was working for them.

>>> [End quote]

OK, but now you have the whole and real picture and know that "jnovitz" was lying when he claimed that an e-mail had been sent to HS «demanding to know why such a notorious denier was working for them». So it’s time to change the basis of your comments, don’t you think so?

>>> The CODOH posts suggests the information was exchanged via phone but if you say otherwise I believe you. I did not read the entire RODOH post because it was (knowingly) speciously initiated by JH and the bulk was childish banter between people with too much time on their hands.

Reading my posts on the thread

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=339.topic&start=1&stop=25

and reading the thread

http://p102.ezboard.com/Will-our-chief-troll-Lamb-Supreme-/frodohforumfrm25.showMessage?topicID=414.topic

would have been sufficient.

>>> Again, this was not my understand of the sequence of events based on what was posted at CODOH and which you (I think) read but did not deny. I will accept that I may well be wrong in this assumption.

You are wrong, and I appreciate your acknowledging it.

>>>The sloppy reader comment reader could equally be applied to you for not adequately reading the CODOH comment (which I am almost certain ended up on RODOH) from which I based my premise.

Actually I read jnovitz’s CODOH comment and commented it in my post # 9820 under

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=339.topic&start=1&stop=25

>>>No, I was not privy to that exchange -- the internet is a rather large place. I based my response on a phone call you admittedly made to a hostel/hotel in Germany and information posted at CODOH.

That was a different occasion, which had nothing to do with the Herbert Smith/David Phillips inquiry. You obviously conflated the two.

>>>All of which is well beside the point. You did not need to include "holocaust denier" in the initial email. It seems to me you would have first concerned yourself with verifying identity. You called him a "holocaust denier" which I will go to my grave believing was meant to cause harm.

As you wish, but that doesn’t bring your belief any closer to reality. I cannot possibly have meant harm to either David Phillips of Herbert Smith or someone I knew was not David Phillips of Herbert Smith.

>>>Holocaust denier is a de-facto pejorative and meant to harm and there was no reason to use it and for you to continue to suggest that it was a reasonable statement,

It is a reasonable statement. An accurate description of what certain people who call themselves "Revisionists" are doing.

>>>or according to you, "necessary",

Yes, in order to gain the attention of Herbert Smith and make sure that they would inform David Phillips, if he was working with them.

>>>is absolutely insulting to me and any thinking person.

I don’t see the insult.

>>> Initially you said it was to warn the innocent fellow (David Phillips) that his name was being malingered.

[quote]>>Oh, that's right, to warn him his name was being used by some hate-mongers and I suppose that's also you opened the email with "holocaust denier"?

No, calling the real David Phillips’ attention to the fact that some asshole was impersonating him was but the secondary purpose. The primary purpose was to show that "Lamb Supreme" had lied about his identity.[/quote]

You should read your own quotes, Butch. The last sentence says that

«The primary purpose was to show that "Lamb Supreme" had lied about his identity.»

What part of that do you not understand?

>>>You could have obtained it exactly the same way you determined the email address of the firm. Just add: Attention David Phillips. Dumb fuck.

So you managed to find David Phillips’ e-mail address that way? Great. Please give me the link where you found it.

>>>Sure, if you will stop with the infernal "word parsing"

What "word parsing"?

>>>Cut the crap. Your original email sounded quite professional so why would you resort to a school-girl approach when trying to contact David Phillips?

What approach exactly are you babbling about?

>>>Emails to law firms -- especially those containing the phrase "holocaust denier" generally get answered.

Well, mine probably got answered because of that. Next time I’ll try without, see what happens.

>>I tried to find David Phillips’ e-mail. No luck.

>>> May because he doesn't work there?

He does, that’s why he contacted me and asked me to post on RODOH a statement that he was not identical with this "Lamb Supreme" fellow.

>>> I don't believe you. I could have determined it and you seem to think yourself more intelligent than me.

So you could have determined it? Good, then please do determine it. Show me the web link to the e-mail address of Mr. David Phillips, solicitor with Herbert Smith LLP.

>>> Again, I am faced with determining who is telling the truth. You post an authentic looking exchange (which I tend to believe) but I also have the word of someone I trust that this information was exchanged over the phone (or at least that's what the text suggests).

Your faith in the honesty of inveterate liar "jnovitz" (aka "Lamb Supreme", aka a number of other handles) is touching and suggests that you’re a rather gullible fellow. I also wonder how you figure my exchange with "Lamb Supreme" on the RODOH forum could have been simulated. And what is more, you didn’t even read accurately what the fellow wrote to you. In the CODOH post you are referring to, "jnovitz" wrote the following:

«I had Roberto Muhlenkampf ring up a hostel I was staying at when in Germany demanding to speak with me.
As a joke i gave them a mates name as mine who i knew was both squeaky clean and reliable (and a sense of humour). A moderator from that forum immediately sent at an email to his employer demanding to know why such a notorious denier was working for them. Now they are tied up in knots over someone who they think is me and banning her left, right and centre.»


The fellow was referring to two different "jokes" of his here, the one with the hostel and the one where he "gave them a mates name as mine". In regard to the second, he provided a rather distorted version of events, as my exchange with him on the RODOH forum shows.

>>> Why would they not? A firm as large and prestigious as Herbert Smith surely has a public relations department and would have responded to an innocuous request for contact information on of their lawyers. For all they would have know it could been the opening negations of a $10M contract.

Maybe you’re right. But that would only mean I had a wrong idea of what I had to do to make sure that Mr. David Phillips, if working with Herbert Smith, would get in touch with me.

>>> I have explained that. I still believe you're being disingenuous as to your intentions for contacting DP's supervisor but I don't expect you to admit it. Do you still maintain that the inclusion of "holocaust denier (... rather odious fellow..." is fine) was "necessary to accomplish your goal?

What matters is whether I thought it was necessary to accomplish that goal at the time, or at least to make accomplishing it easier. I did, and if my assessment was wrong, that doesn’t make me disingenuous.

>>I don’t mind the «fucking». My point is that you haven’t caught me lying just because you claim you did.

>>> See above.

Wishful thinking, my friend.

>>> No they would not have glossed over such an obvious misrepresentation as your chums did at RODOH.

What "obvious misrepresentation"? I don’t think the CODOH clowns would spot an obvious misrepresentation if it bit them in their fat Nazi behinds.

Ah, and RODOH isn’t all chums. Unlike "Hannover" Hargis' warm and cozy Führerbunker, it’s both chums and opponents. There are about as many chums of mine there as there are "Revisionist" true believers like yourself. That's real open debate.

>>>No a single one of those erudite fucks bothered to say, "Wonder why RM felt the need to include 'holocaust denier' in his email?"

On the thread

http://p102.ezboard.com/Will-our-chief-troll-Lamb-Supreme-/frodohforumfrm25.showMessage?topicID=414.topic

you find at least one fellow (“terrifictroare”) who made a fuss about my having contacted Herbert Smith. Why don’t you read before writing?

>>> The site is not censored. They do on occasion eject foul-mouthed, argumentative fucks.

I suggest you cure your ignorance on the RODOH Memory Hole, which you find under

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18

You need only read the related posts of "Revisionist" poster "Wahrheitseeker", who didn’t take long to find out what the CODOH Cesspit was all about. I’ll give you the benefit of doubt for now, but next time you claim there is no censorship on CODOH, I’ll have to conclude that you’re a liar.

What’s this thing with "argumentative fucks", by the way? Isn’t one supposed to be argumentative on a discussion forum? Moreover on one that promises "Open Debate on the Holocaust".

>>> No, I don't have time to do that, BUT how about this: why don't you ask him if he did it or not? If he says, "No", I will take the hour it will take to track it down. Fair? Also please direct me to the search feature at HC, I can't find it... but then again I'm a mole.

You made the claim, so it’s up to you to back it up. I don’t have to go ask anyone. The line to insert a search term is on the upper left of the homepage.

>>> Well, I think we have been over this. I got my information from a different source than you. But for the tenth time, 'holocaust denier was not necessary but apparently you are convinced it was integral to your point.

I certainly was convinced at the time, and so was a RODOH poster who on the thread

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm25.showMessageRange?topicID=414.topic&start=21&stop=40

commented as follows:

«At first I thought it a bit much, but on second reading thought it rather clever, worded as it is to suggest that there might be a third party (the "unpleasant person, a holocaust denier) bandying about the name of one of the firm's employees.»

>>>Possibly my technical background gives me a different perspective than your liberal arts (I'm guessing) background. An engineer would have gotten to the bottom of this a long, long, long time ago.

I’m not following you here.

>>> You initiated a wantonly harmful letter to a person's place of business but fail to take responsibility for it choosing instead to continue with the puerile cookie-jar defense.

That’s bullshit from start to finish, my dear boy. If I had written to Herbert Smith assuming that "Lamb Supreme" was really David Phillips, I would have no problem telling you so. It just happens that I had no doubt about this not being so, which in turn means that I had no harm to David Phillips of Herbert Smith in mind. On the contrary, as a matter of fact.

[In the following I’ll skip some of your BS in order to make this exercise less boring.]

>>> Good point and I have repeatedly said that I will indeed post at RODOH -- give me sometime.

Sure, all the time you need.

>>>Well... off the top of mu head, I'm wondering why JH abandoned ngoodgame's reasonable request for a joint renunciation on of anti-holocaust laws?

He explained that himself, IIRC.

>>>But, I'll tell you now I'm not going to scour your blog for inconsistencies, I don't have the time or inclination.

>>>Besides, when I do unearth something,

Well, there are plenty of “Revisionist” comments under some articles. :-)

>>>I would just get into another of these protracted double-talk debates with you or another hysterical fuck.

You wouldn’t be allowed to get away with your BS, and that wouldn’t involve any double-talk other than your own. And the "hysterical fuck" is another of those utterances betraying the hysteria of it’s author. Coming from an unbalanced hysteric like you, it’s actually a compliment.

>>>I am seriously asking this: you consider ngoodgane is a troll and therefore dismiss him with insults? To me he appeared to be one of the more civil posters I've read (at HC) in awhile. He fucking begged you for information. When he didn't get anything even approaching a dialogue, he closed by asking for a mutual agreement to renounce holocaust denial laws (not like that B.S. you posted) and got completely ignored.

JH must have had his reasons for that.

>>>Possibly you guys are clairvoyant and can identify "trolls" by some sixth sense?

Nobody here has a sixth sense, but some of us have experience with more or less trolling "Revisionist" ramblers.

>>Actually it has the merit of high principle, my friend. People who consider your ideas nonsensical and disgusting nevertheless campaign for your right to express those ideas, because they genuinely believe in free speech.

>>>How is it possible that you can make such an absurd statement? There are fucking people in prison for doing exactly what you suggest people "support and defend".

You’re not a very good reader, are you? By "people" I meant the author of my petition and those who, although opposed to "Revisionist" BS, have signed or will sign it.

>>> But your bit of prose will make it all the way to the president?

It is likelier to get the president’s attention than anything suggesting there’s some merit in "Revisionist" baloney.

>>>How many are shills?

One so far. A certain Butch Dawson from Alabama.

>>>Are you actually suggesting that it will have meaning or will be acted on?

We’ll see.

>>>Point being, what one man decides to say (your signature quote) has no bearing except it makes dumb fucks like you feel better

Boy, that quote really seems to worry you.

>>>But you seem to hold out hope that your petition -- which is also a petition against holocaust denial -- will somehow make a difference? Doesn't make sense.

My petition differs from yours in that it doesn’t suggest there’s any merit to "Revisionism". It just says that dumb fucking idiots shouldn’t be punished for being dumb fucking idiots. That gives it a better chance of getting attention in a state where "Revisionism" is considered not only something despicable but also a criminal offense.

>>> Yes I do. But it's so prejudiced, you might as well have said "we denounce beating children with metal rods".

I don’t think it’s prejudiced at all. Mr. Baumann’s assessment of "Revisionism" coincides with what I have gathered about the movement in years of observation.

And I’m glad to see how it bothers you. :-)

>>> That's quite a stretch. I have never personally communicated with Harigis but he seems fair enough...

So you consider censoring opposition on a discussion forum that promises "open debate" a fair thing to do? That’s interesting.

>>>especially compared to the HC policy of revealing personal information. Do you consider that ethical?

Actually I do consider it ethical, where someone gets personal and throws manure from behind the safety of an alias, to deprive him of that safety. More ethical at any rate than throwing manure at named persons on a discussion forum where such persons are not allowed to post, which is what Hargis does on a regular basis.

>>>I'm still working on a way to broach the topic with them. You have already demonstrated a propensity to "hurt" people

Now you’re becoming boring, my friend.

>>>so I can't predict their reaction

Well, I can. They’ll mouth off about me, with Hargis breaking into another of his mendacious victory dances, and they’ll dig up excuses for not signing. And I will have lots of fun with all that.

>>>but I'll try and word it so as to obtain maximum response but to ask someone to sign a petition that specifically calls them "stupid" is a tall order.

Maybe, but it’s the only way they can make a serious statement against the criminalization of Holocaust denial.

>>> and the Harigis "outing"?

When someone regularly mouths off and lies about me on a forum where I am not allowed to post, I consider myself entitled to at least call him by his name and show no respect for his anonymity concerns.

>>> Again, your lack of logic shows. Why were these laws enacted in the first place? Would you have me believe it was at the suggestion of Revisionist?

No, but I have seen how "Revisionist" capitalize on whining about how they are poor victims of persecution. It has become a mainstay of their propaganda, which would have much less wind in its sails without it.

>>>And if it helps revisionist, then it must hurt the believers and yet you submit such an impotent renunciation petition?

Strange logic. The existence of laws against "Revisionist" hate speech is advantageous to "Revisionists" in that it provides them with a strong propaganda argument. Taking away that propaganda argument will truly hurt the followers of "Revisionism". Being allowed to freely spread their BS everywhere is the worst thing that can happen to them.

>>> Anyone who doesn't take the time to "spell check" looses a few points in my book. Besides, who is this fuck and what does he know?

I’m not following you here. What are you babbling about?

>>> You're a psychologist too? In any event, it would be a "mirror" projection since you first used the line.

Except that when I used it was not self-projection, but a conclusion derived from what I’ve seen of you.

>>>And while were at it, cut the crap, when was the last time you heard ANYTHING about the Stalin holocaust? (Other than Applebaum's book).

To give but two examples, when I read Richard Overy’s recent book "The Dictators", which compares Adolf and Uncle Joe and when I read newspaper articles about the Ukrainian government’s intention to make denial of Stalin’s Ukrainian famine of the early 1930s a crime.

>>> Have I read it? No. I have never even heard of it. I am in a technical field so I simply have no time for obscure GULAG books by Jewish writers.

What do you have against Jewish writers?

And on what basis do you call a book you know nothing about "obscure"?

>>>I did read The Gulag Archipelago.

So did I.

>>>This is a long-shot but how often does Ms. Applebaum compare the Stalin pogroms to the holocaust?

The lady doesn’t seem to be concerned with such comparisons, from what I’ve seen in my cross-reading of her book. It seems you’re postulating things about her just because she’s Jewish. How come?

>>> Well, we just disagree on this. To me the "big picture" is against the Jewish holocaust.
In any event, your illogic is again showing if you seriously think that Revisionist are drawing more attention to the holocaust than Jews themselves.

That’s not illogical at all, but the result of analyzing my own experience. As I said I wasn’t much interested in the Holocaust before encountering numb nuts who deny it. And I’ve met other people with a similar experience.

>>> 1) The "death camps" were (by and large) liberated by the Soviets who had 20M excellent >>> reasons to hate the Germans and, therefore, in my opinion had every reason to embellish >>> their >findings.

Actually evidence that the Soviets could have had no influence on shows that what the Soviets reported about their findings was quite accurate in many respects, even if they sometimes overestimated the number of victims.

>>> Said another way, the Soviets were an evil empire (a Ronald Reagan quote)... except what >>> they said about the Germans concerning the 'death camps'.

Actually most of what is known about the death camps does not come from the Soviets, but from posterior research and investigation by historians and West German criminal justice authorities.

>>> 2) Six million of these brilliant Jews systematically walked into sure death camps?

Actually «only» ca. 2.7 million out of ca. 5.1 million Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide were killed in death camps. The rest succumbed to mobile killing operations or to misery and brutal treatment in ghettos or «plain» concentration camps.

>>> The Jews have quite an extensive "grapevine" (communication system) yet they couldn't >>> make the point known to one another that "something bad was afoot"?

Actually that communication system has more to do with your baseless preconceived notions than with reality. One who witnessed events first hand, German SS-officer von dem Bach-Zelewski, is quoted in Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews as follows:

«Thus the misfortune came about … I am the only living witness but I must say the truth. Contrary to the opinion of the National Socialists that the Jews were a highly organized group, the appalling fact was that they had no organization whatsoever. The mass of the Jewish people were taken completely by surprise. They did not know at all what to do; they had no directives or slogans as to how they should act. That is the greatest lie of anti-Semitism because it gives the lie to the slogan that the Jews are conspiring to dominate the world and that they are so highly organized. In reality they had no organization of their own at all, not even an information service. If they had had some sort of organization, these people could have been saved by the millions; but instead they were taken completely by surprise. Never before has a people gone as unsuspectingly to its disaster. Nothing was prepared. Absolutely nothing. It was not so, as the anti-Semites say, that they were friendly to the Soviets. That is the most appalling misconception of all. The Jews in the old Poland, who were never communistic in their sympathies, were, throughout the area of the Bug eastward, more afraid of Bolshevism than of the Nazis. This was insanity. They could have been saved. There were people among them who had much to lose, business people; they didn’t want to leave. In addition there was love of home and their experience with pogroms in Russia. After the first anti-Jewish actions of the Germans, they thought now the wave was over and so they walked back to their undoing.»

>>> 3) This is not he first time Jews have been expelled from a country or region (in fact it is a >>> very real part of their history), most recently, Uganda. The history of Jewish usury -- >>> >>> leading to economic instability and an "economically imprisoned" society -- is well >>> >>> documented. The term Jew/Shylock is as old as Shakespeare. Actually it was in common >>> usage by Shakespeare's time. Jewish usury is mentioned extensively in the Arabian Nights >>> which was written circa AD 800-900.

Thanks for making it so clear that you’re just another Jew-hating bigot.

>>>Further, miserable results of "Revisionist research" is just flat out disingenuous.

No, "Revisionist research" is just flat out piss-poor.

>>> If it wasn't for revisionist, we'd still be debating "shrunken heads" and Jew-soap.

Actually the former did exist (though they didn’t amount to more than a few pathological nutcases, big deal) whereas the latter was never entertained by historians. What inaccuracies there have been in the historical record have been removed by historians themselves, without any contribution by "Revisionists". “Revisionists” are as superfluous as gad-flies.

>>>These people are not automatically anti-semites.

No, some of them are just Hitler-kissers with no particular animus against Jews. And yet others, although these are a minority, are simply wisecrackers who think it’s cool to be "political incorrect".

>>>In many, many, many cases, they are trained scholars who see an overt inconsistency.

Your faith is touching indeed. I look forward to your showing up on RODOH and listing your "scholars" and the inconsistencies they are supposed to have detected.

>>>I don't expect you to accept that because it has been inculcated in you that anyone who questions the holocaust is an anti-semite.

No, the reason why I don’t accept it is that I have looked at your "scholars" and their contentions for years and found nothing but mendacious shit there.

>>>You are not the independent thinker you believe yourself to be.

Well, I’m independent enough not to be taken in by "scholars" who claim to have seen "an overt inconsistency".

>>>You are telling me that I will rue the day revisionist laws are overturned? Probably not, I think putting scholars in prison is a great idea.

I wouldn’t call those gibbering hate-propagandists scholars, and there are many people who don’t think putting them into prison for their trash is a great idea. That’s why there are countries with no laws against Holocaust denial, I suppose.

>>>Another long-shot, do you believe the Nuremberg trials to have been balanced?

On the whole, and despite certain shortcomings, yes. That’s something we can discuss on RODOH when you come there.

>>> If you feel free to spout stereotypes about 'Ol Bama, would you find disagreeable if I suggested Jews are historically usurious?

Thanks for admitting that your preconceived notions about Jews are as idiotic as it would be to claim that Alabamans are usually rednecks. I wasn’t doing that. I was just pointing out that you show bigotry I would also expect to see in certain inhabitants of your lovely state.

>>> A more likely reason for you coming to 'Ol Bama would be to take advantage of one of the most advanced medical research facilities on the planet (The University of Alabama at Birmingham) or maybe to visit the facility directly responsible for putting some half-dozen Americans on the moon (The Huntsville Space and Rocket Center). Other than that, yeah, we mostly lynch blacks.

Yep, I guess 'Ol Bama has good and bad things like every other place. The crap inside your mind belongs in the latter category.

>>>And when I visit Germany again, maybe you can show me the legislation building where the censorship laws were voted on?

Sure. It’s in Berlin. Great city.

>>>Ask Sergey if he ever posted personal information about me (or anyone) and let me know how he answers. If he lies and says "No", I'll search the archives to find it but I won't expect an apology once I locate it.

>>>He posted, IP address, geographical information, and the amount of time I spent at the site. In other words, everything he had access to.

OK, I’ll ask him next time he shows up. And I’m sure he won’t lie about it.

>>>Other than that, I cannot continue this lengthy correspondence. "Reasonable men can disagree and remain quite reasonable".

Well, you still have a long way to go until you can call yourself a reasonable man. I’d like to believe I have seen small hints in that direction among all the trash you have produced.

>>>While non-admissible, I find a country that produced Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Beethoven, Kant, Max Planck, Mozart, not to mention the scientists, incapable of a genocide on the scale you suggest.

Actually it has been experimentally proven (the so-called Milgram experiments) that genocide is not beyond any people in this world, however cultured it may be. An excellent book about how normal people can be induced by authority into committing mass murder is Prof. Browning’s Ordinary Men. Read it when you have time.

>>>This is my last correspondence under this format. I may (time permitting) post at RODOH.

OK, see you there.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>You took a week to get your petition posted and it was already written so fuck-off.

I told you that I took would take a week because I would be out of the country for one week, whereas you told me to check for your post on CODOH "in a day or so".

>No, it was not deleted but I have decided against posting something that asks people to sign a >petition that specifically refers to them as ignorant or stupid (or whatever the inane quote is).

I see.

The "inane" quote really got to you, didn’t it?

>I will bring it to the intention of the CODOH folk that a petition exists at HC and let them decide.

With direct link I expect.

>BTW, you are wrong about the double negative. Read it again.

Read again, didn’t change my mind.

Butch said...

RM,

Now this part is just for fun because I can't tell if you are and ego-maniac or just refuse to agree with anything I say.

First, is it accurate to say HC's stance on Revisionism Laws is as follows:

Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.

My follow-on question is, of course, going to be: if the above is true how is it that the opposite (below) is also true?

Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.

The second block of text is what is published at HC.

"Nor" is synonymous with "neither", at least according to my dictionary -- though it may have been tampered with by Nazis.

The inane quote didn't really get to me but it did get to me that you wanted me to ask CODOH members to sign a petition that clearly states they are stupid and I simply do not believe that to be the case.

Besides is was said 50 years after the war and it refers to the "Germany's recent past" so there is some doubt it it even refers to the holocaust, but I'll accept it does.

You are clearly a bright fellow but your hubris seriously compromises your objectivity.

A link to your petition is currently posted at CODOH (and so far has not been deleted).

B

Andrew E. Mathis said...

Nor is not synonymous with neither.

Sigh.

a.m.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>RM,

>Now this part is just for fun because I can't tell if you are and ego-maniac or just refuse to >agree with anything I say.

Neither applies, as usual.

>First, is it accurate to say HC's stance on Revisionism Laws is as follows:

>Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in >favour of Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer >that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of >Deniers.

>My follow-on question is, of course, going to be: if the above is true how is it that the opposite >(below) is also true?

>Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in >favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would >prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs >out of Deniers.

The latter text is not the opposite of the former and vice-versa. The only difference between the two is that the laws in question are called "Holocaust Denial laws" in the former and "anti-Holocaust Denial laws" in the latter. The meaning of both terms is the same, however: laws against Holocaust Denial or laws that prohibit Holocaust Denial. The "anti" – prefix in the second text cannot be understood in any other way. It is rather far-fetched to read it in the sense of "laws against the prohibition of Holocaust Denial", as you seem wont to do. For if Holocaust Denial is not forbidden by law, this automatically means that it is permitted.

>The second block of text is what is published at HC.

>"Nor" is synonymous with "neither", at least according to my dictionary -- though it may have >been tampered with by Nazis.

So?

>The inane quote didn't really get to me but it did get to me that you wanted me to ask CODOH >members to sign a petition that clearly states they are stupid and I simply do not believe that to >be the case.

Sure, not all of them are stupid. Some have just switched off their brains in order to believe what they are eager to believe, and some are liars trying to sell their propaganda by means of a number of tricks they hope gullible folks to fall for.

>Besides is was said 50 years after the war and it refers to the "Germany's recent past" so there >is some doubt it it even refers to the holocaust, but I'll accept it does.

In a country with a 2000-year history like Germany, 50 years ago can be considered a "recent" past. And the context allows for no other interpretation. Mind that this text was written in 1994 on occasion of the introduction into the German criminal code of the current subsection (3) of Section 130, which translates as follows (see under http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#130 ):

«Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.»

Section 220a subsection (1) reads as follows (see under http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#220a):

(1) Whoever, with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group or one characterized by its folk customs by:

1. killing members of the group;

2. inflicting serious physical or emotional harm, especially of the type indicated in Section 226 on members of the group;

3. placing the group in living conditions capable of leading, in whole or in part, to their physical destruction;

4. imposing measures which are intended to prevent births within the group;

5. forcibly transferring children of the group into another group,

shall be punished with imprisonment for life.


>You are clearly a bright fellow but your hubris seriously compromises your objectivity.

It takes no hubris to have a healthy contempt for "Revisionism". All it takes is common sense, basic humanity and ideological indifference.

>A link to your petition is currently posted at CODOH (and so far has not been deleted).

Thanks, I’ll enjoy it while it lasts.

By the way, the author of the quote is a certain Mr. Baumann, who published the article containing this quote in a legal journal called "Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht" ("New Journal for Criminal Law"). The article’s reference in my source is "NStZ 1994, S. 392 (Baumann)". I’ll see if I can obtain a copy of the article.

Butch said...

RM,

It is a minor point to be sure but your stance epitomizes the hubris I spoke of; rather than agree that it is poorly (actually, incorrectly) worded, you continue to defend it. Oh, well.

I'll check with someone local (if I can find any university graduates in 'ol Bama) for clarification. In the meantime, I'll assume thesis and antithesis are the same thing.

Anti: 1 a: of the same kind but situated opposite, exerting energy in the opposite direction, or pursuing an opposite policy.

This according to m-w.com... but the site may have been hacked by Nazis.

Section 220a subsection (1) reads as follows (see under http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#220a):

(1) Whoever, with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group or one characterized by its folk customs by:

1. killing members of the group;

2. inflicting serious physical or emotional harm, especially of the type indicated in Section 226 on members of the group;

3. placing the group in living conditions capable of leading, in whole or in part, to their physical destruction;

4. imposing measures which are intended to prevent births within the group;

5. forcibly transferring children of the group into another group,

shall be punished with imprisonment for life.


So? Who's doing any of that?

Conversely, it appears Article 19 [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] is being severely compromised.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>RM,

>It is a minor point to be sure >but your stance epitomizes the >hubris I spoke of; rather than >agree that it is poorly
>(actually, incorrectly) worded, >you continue to defend it. Oh, >well.

>I'll check with someone local (if >I can find any university >graduates in 'ol Bama) for >clarification. In the meantime, >I'll assume thesis and antithesis >are the same thing.

>Anti: 1 a: of the same kind but >situated opposite, exerting >energy in the opposite direction, >or pursuing an opposite policy.

>This according to m-w.com... but >the site may have been hacked by >Nazis.

However hard you try, this is not an issue of thesis and antithesis. It's a matter of whether you refer to laws prohibiting Holocaust Denial as "Holocaust Denial laws" or as "anti-Holocaust Denial laws". Makes no difference to me, both terms obviously mean the same.

>Section 220a subsection (1) reads >as follows (see under >http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statute>s/StGB.htm#220a):

>(1) Whoever, with the intent of >destroying as such, in whole or >in part, a national, racial or >religious group or one >characterized by its folk customs >by:

>1. killing members of the group;

>2. inflicting serious physical or >emotional harm, especially of the >type indicated in Section 226 on >members of the group;

>3. placing the group in living >conditions capable of leading, in >whole or in part, to their >physical destruction;

>4. imposing measures which are >intended to prevent births within >the group;

>5. forcibly transferring children >of the group into another group,

>shall be punished with >imprisonment for life.

>So? Who's doing any of that?

I thought you might want to know what Nazi crimes subsection (3) of Section 130 of the German criminal code (the Holocaust denial law or anti-Holocaust denial law, whichever you wish to call it) refers to as «an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1)».

Sorry if this was too complex for you to understand.

>Conversely, it appears Article 19 >[Universal Declaration of Human >Rights] is being severely >compromised.

Certainly. People are being criminally prosecuted for publicly uttering stupid things, and that shouldn't be so.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Presumably Butch will also accuse the framers of this law of being illiterate?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Act

Butch said...

RM,

Article 19 does not use the word "stupid" anywhere in the text and the "stupid utterances" you refer to are only "stupid" because you say they are -- very similar to the stupidity mentioned in your inane quote -- and that's not quite enough proof. If I call you stupid, does it make it so?

Some people think it stupid to eat meat while others are perfectly content with it. Some people think adding the prefix "anti" to a word does not change it's meaning whereas others think otherwise (fortunately the ladder can be shown to be accurate).

There are plenty of inconsistencies with the standard holocaust story and, again, it's your hubris that costs you objectivity.

Anyway, don't want to get adversarial this morning. I have two huge writing assignments today so will be off-line all day. I'll post at RODOH as soon as time permits.

JH,

Jesus Christ Jonathan. That's why it's known as the Sherman Act or, more commonly, the Sherman Anti-Trust act but never as the Sherman Trust Act.

You guys would have me believe that the Sherman Trust Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust act are identical.

Let's table this thing until I can talk to an English Professor. BTW, what does Mathis say?

B

Andrew E. Mathis said...

What do I think about what?

a.m.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Article 19 does not use the word "stupid" anywhere in the text and the "stupid utterances" you >refer to are only "stupid" because you say they are -- very similar to the stupidity mentioned in >your inane quote -- and that's not quite enough proof. If I call you stupid, does it make it so?

Stop whining, Butch. If you want to see what a stupid thing "Revisionism" is, come over to RODOH and defend your theories in open debate. Of course chances are that you’re too enamored with your articles of faith to realize how stupid they are, but then you will at least serve as another instructive demonstration object.

>Some people think it stupid to eat meat while others are perfectly content with it. Some people >think adding the prefix "anti" to a word does not change it's meaning whereas others think >otherwise (fortunately the ladder can be shown to be accurate).

Just make sure that you don’t fall off the ladder, my friend.

>There are plenty of inconsistencies with the standard holocaust story and, again, it's your >hubris that costs you objectivity.

It takes no lack of objectivity to consider "Revisionism" stupid, common sense and ideological indifference will do. The opposite does not apply, however. One must have subordinated objectivity to ideologically motivated pre-conceived notions in order to believe that "Revisionism" has a merit.

And as to "inconsistencies with the standard holocaust story", I have probably seem more such "inconsistencies" than you and can assure you that none of them affects the reasonability of concluding that, whatever inaccuracies may be contained in or uncertainties left by eyewitness testimonies and other evidence, they do not affect the reasonability of concluding on the factuality of the systematic mass killing that becomes apparent from this evidence, and they are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative explanation for the evidence – especially the inane explanation that it was all fabricated by some gigantic "hoax" – that you might offer.

>Anyway, don't want to get adversarial this morning. I have two huge writing assignments today >so will be off-line all day. I'll post at RODOH as soon as time permits.

OK, see you then.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

AM
>What do I think about what?

Start with

«You guys would have me believe that the Sherman Trust Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust act are identical.»

Then replace "Sherman Trust Act" by "Holocaust Denial Laws" and "Sherman Anti-Trust Act" with "Anti-Holocaust Denial Laws".

Andrew E. Mathis said...

Before I answer this, let me say this about myself: Despite the fact that I make frequent typing errors in my blog posts, I'm actually really persnickety about grammar -- I'm basically what is called a prescriptive grammarian. However, that being said, certain rules are arcane and do nothing to get in the way of meaning, e.g., ending sentences with preposition. So I don't enforce those rules, either for myself or my students.

The comparison between "Sherman Anti-Trust" and "Anti-Holocaust-Denial" is false because of the historical contexts.

In the case of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it's obvious the law is passed against Trusts. This is inherent in the name.

There is, in fact, an ambiguity in "Anti-Holocaust-Denial laws," but it is clarified by asking one's self a simple question: Other than the government of Turkey, is there any government in the world that enforces the denial of a genocide?

The answer, of course, is "no." That being the case, stating that we at HC are "against Holocaust-Denial laws" (without the "anti-") is clear without needing prefix.

In the former case (anti-Trust), the meaning would be completely opposite without the prefix. In the latter case, mere reality prevents this from being a problem.

I vote with my colleagues on this one.

Note: I corrected Jon on an earlier grammatical point in private e-mail. I forget the issue.

a.m.

Nick Terry said...

"Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States."

Sheesh. I wrote that, and now a maroon comes along to tell me he's confused?

I'd have thought it was obvious that 'anti-Holocaust Denial laws' is another way of saying 'laws against Holocaust denial'.

Equally, saying 'anti-racist legislation' is another way of saying 'legislation against racism'.

Now where's that deadhorse icon? Oh, wait, at RODOH, of course...

Butch, quit whining and get your ass over to RODOH. You have at least 15 likeminds to cheer you on there. You won't be alone. The boss is a revisionist, even.

And it'll give everybody waaaay less headaches that we're getting reading the scrunched-up blog comments posts w/o HTML formatting.

Butch said...

NT, RM, AM, JH

NT: Sheesh. I wrote that, and now a maroon (sic) comes along to tell me he's confused?

You guys absolutely, unequivocally don't play fair. I never said I was confused. JH claimed in an HC post and a RODOH post that I said HC failed to make it's revisionism laws clear. He claimed that, he made it up, he lied.

I never claimed that. What I did was point out (at CODOH) that someone else (as in another person, a different human-being), some guy named ngoodgame (who, BTW, was nothing but civil throughout his entire exchange with JH but got ridiculed from beginning to end) begged for some information or dialogue at HC but never got anything but sarcasms.

He finally left (I think) but before he did, he asked if HC (more specifically JH, since he was "handling the case") would join him in renunciation of holocaust denial laws.

Ngooggame: Here is my question: Will the contributors here at holocaust controversies join me in condemning these outrageous laws and the governments that enact them?

Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good that they serve.

Thank you very much.


JH "abandoned" (my word) the question until I made mention of it two full weeks later at CODOH, then he (JH) posted the sarcastic "A Note Bankdraft" at HC (which is where the linguistic ambiguity became known) and the wantonly false post at RODOH that speciously begins:

Some idiot called Bankdraft claims that the HC forum has not made its position on denial laws clear enough.

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=339.topic

You can see the see JH/ngooggame exchange here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24597325&postID=8708834437459777056

The whole thread is worth reading but the last three comments are mandatory.

NT: I'd have thought it was obvious that 'anti-Holocaust Denial laws' is another way of saying 'laws against Holocaust denial'.

Well, it is another way of saying it but it's incorrect. You cannot randomly insert "anti" and expect the same meaning.

NT: Equally, saying 'anti-racist legislation' is another way of saying 'legislation against racism'.

Now, that is true, but that's not what happened here.

The intent is clear enough but JH felt the need to try and shove it up my ass and, well, payback is a muthafukka. Especially for some poor fuck like me with four kids, a wife, a job, and very little free time yet I'm engaged with four HC moderators.

Anyway, Here's what I asked RM concerning the revisionism law policy:

[START]

RM,

Now this part is just for fun because I can't tell if you are and ego-maniac or just refuse to agree with anything I say.

First, is it accurate to say HC's stance on Revisionism Laws is as follows:

Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.

My follow-on question is, of course, going to be: if the above is true how is it that the opposite (below) is also true?

Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.

The second block of text is what is published at HC.

[STOP]

RM would not agree to any discrepancy which surprises me seeing as how he is the most intelligent human being on the planet -- just ask him.

In any event it is (finally) settled by the good doctor (AM).

AM: "There is, in fact, an ambiguity in "Anti-Holocaust-Denial laws," but it is clarified by asking one's self a simple question: Other than the government of Turkey, is there any government in the world that enforces the denial of a genocide?"

Even though it may be clarified by the Turkish situation, people should not be required to know world history in order to understand your position. The drafter (NT, I guess) fucked up but admit it? Never! (Not so much NT, but RM.)

A reasonable person would have said, "Ya know what? Ya got a point there brother, thanks for bringing it to our attention."

BTW, the policy was never unclear to me, I just decided to point out the error (or shall we say "ambiguity") because JH tried to fuck with me.

RM never even remotely acknowledged an irregularity what-so-ever. None. Which kind of brings us to the crux of the issue: HC refuses to compromise on ANYTHING! "It's 6M gassed Jews! Period! And if you believe anything else, you're an anti-semite." (Before you get hysterical, I just used that line as an example.)

Finally, I never raised the Sherman Act, that was JH's brainstorm (apparently the only thing with "anti" in the title that came to mind) I knew the situations were not analogous (since there is no such thing as a "Trust Act", at least in the present context) but played along since it was so easy to do.

But the ROHOH suggestion has been made several times and it does seem preferably to this type forum. Plus my "boss" does seem a reasonable fellow.

For example when JH made this ridiculous response to my statement (first posted at CODOH):

BD: That's why in another thread I suggested Dr. Butz (Northwestern University engineering professor and author of the Hoax of the 20th Century) was one of the best revisionist. Can you imagine the ridicule he must endure everyday? But then again he is also quite the role model; bright young engineering students see this reasonable and clearly intelligent man teaching engineering and have to ask themselves if his book doesn't have some merit?

JH: Yes, because someone who can teach me about hydraulics is going to be a perfect source on historiography

(Apparently forgetting that AM is a PhD (as is Butz) but not a historiographer either)

Scott Smith corrected him: [Butz is] Not a perfect source on historiography but clearly not a fire-breathing reptile, so the usual ad hominem doesn't go as far. People might ask themselves why an intelligent man might have such radically different views on a subject and wonder if there is a reason for it besides kookery. Indeed, this is exactly why Lipstadt wants Butz removed from teaching engineering at Northwestern, so that he will not come into contact with bright young kids. Dangerous ideas, even if he keeps them to himself (which he does to hold his job). But then again, It's not for nothing that Thoughtcrime Is Death.

JH's response? An engineer can teach himself to become a good historiographer, as can any layperson. However, someone who has doctoral training in textual analysis is more likely to be a good historian than someone who has not.

In other words not a scintilla of responsibility for such a clearly flawed statement.

Anyway, I'm gone -- don't write back! See you at RODOH

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>RM,

>Now this part is just for fun because I can't tell if you are and ego-maniac or just refuse to >agree with anything I say.

It’s none of that, my friend. It’s just that your arguments fail to convince.

>First, is it accurate to say HC's stance on Revisionism Laws is as follows:

>Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in >favour of Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer >that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of >Deniers.

>My follow-on question is, of course, going to be: if the above is true how is it that the opposite >(below) is also true?

>Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in >favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would >prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs >out of Deniers.

>The second block of text is what is published at HC.

>[STOP]

>RM would not agree to any discrepancy which surprises me seeing as how he is the most >intelligent human being on the planet -- just ask him.

It's not that I consider myself extraordinarily intelligent. It's just that it doesn’t take much to beat Butch's level.

>In any event it is (finally) settled by the good doctor (AM).

>AM: "There is, in fact, an ambiguity in "Anti-Holocaust-Denial laws," but it is clarified by asking >one's self a simple question: Other than the government of Turkey, is there any government in >the world that enforces the denial of a genocide?"

>Even though it may be clarified by the Turkish situation, people should not be required to know >world history in order to understand your position. The drafter (NT, I guess) fucked up but >admit it? Never! (Not so much NT, but RM.)

Context is the name of the game, Butch. Here’s what I wrote in my comment of Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:07:00 PM:

The latter text is not the opposite of the former and vice-versa. The only difference between the two is that the laws in question are called "Holocaust Denial laws" in the former and "anti-Holocaust Denial laws" in the latter. The meaning of both terms is the same, however: laws against Holocaust Denial or laws that prohibit Holocaust Denial. The "anti" – prefix in the second text cannot be understood in any other way. It is rather far-fetched to read it in the sense of "laws against the prohibition of Holocaust Denial", as you seem wont to do. For if Holocaust Denial is not forbidden by law, this automatically means that it is permitted.

No need to know world history, or even current politics. Minding the context and thinking a little is all it takes to realize that "anti-Holocaust Denial laws" cannot have been meant in a sense other than "laws prohibiting Holocaust denial".

>A reasonable person would have said, "Ya know what? Ya got a point there brother, thanks for >bringing it to our attention."

If you had had a point there, it would have been acknowledged.

>BTW, the policy was never unclear to me, I just decided to point out the error (or shall we say >"ambiguity") because JH tried to fuck with me.

Thanks for the glimpse of your bitching-fish-wife – personality.

>RM never even remotely acknowledged an irregularity what-so-ever. None.

RM thinks that discussions about what a term might be held to mean in isolation are pointless when the meaning of the term is clear in the context in which it is being used.

>Which kind of brings us to the crux of the issue: HC refuses to compromise on ANYTHING!

No, we just require evidence and reasonable arguments in order to compromise on something.

>"It's >6M gassed Jews! Period!

I suggest you inform yourself about the historical record. Start with Hilberg’s breakdown of deaths by cause, which you may find under http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/hillberg_cause.htm .

>And if you believe anything else, you're an anti-semite."

Actually your motivations for believing in "Revisionist" BS are secondary to us. We focus on the intellectual poverty of your counter-evidentiary, illogical and mendacious conspiracy theories.

>(Before you get hysterical, I just used that line as an example.)

"Hysterical" is a term that fits you but not your opponents, my dear Butch. I advise you to try being less hysterical and more objective when coming to RODOH. Otherwise you’ll quickly be making a fool of yourself there.

>Anyway, I'm gone -- don't write back!

A discussion is not over when you call it over, Butch. That’s another thing you should bear in mind when posting on RODOH.

Andrew E. Mathis said...

Butch writes, "Well, it is another way of saying it but it's incorrect."

No, it isn't, and I'm a licensed grammarian.

a.m.

Butch said...

AM,

Butch writes, "Well, it is another way of saying it but it's incorrect."

No, it isn't, and I'm a licensed grammarian.

a.m.

AM,

May I say this?

"Well, it's another say of saying it but it creates an ambiguity."

Did you not acknowledge an ambiguity? I am genuinely interested in the nuances of the English language.

B

Butch said...

RM,

Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio. - Seneca.

You're a small man.

Butch

Andrew E. Mathis said...

Butch,

You have quoted me correctly. The issue is that, as I already pointed out, the ambiguity of the wording is straightened out by context -- not just historical context, but the context of the rest of the paragraph.

If you're asking which would be the "correct" way of stating this, my answer is that I don't know. I'd have to look it up. But at the same time, the non-prescriptivist part of me says that meaning isn't lost, so it's no harm, no foul.

a.m.

Butch said...

AM,

Thank you. I agree fully that the meaning was never lost -- certainly not on me.

The entire exchange had little to do with history anyway, rather it was a petty game played between RM and me.

Please do not trouble yourself to research it. I merely suggested that two statements, identical except that one contained the prefix "anti", could not carry the same meaning.

The "correct" way -- bearing in mind you are the grammarian. -- would almost have to be sans "anti".

Respectfully,

Butch

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>RM,

>Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine >nimio. - Seneca.

>You're a small man.

Small is who makes a big issue out of insignificant matters, my friend. And from the howling about ngoodgame's question or request having been "ignored" to the "anti" exercise, you have shown to be such a character.

Butch said...

A recent exchange between two members of CODOH.COM

[Start]

Ok, I viewed the HC petition and supported the cause, but didn't like the wording as it contained a quote which referred to revisionism as being a position of 'stupidity'. It was suggested to me to design an alternative, so I did.

It seems the German government does have a 'petitions committee' so if it gets enough signatures, I'll send it to them. If anyone would like to sign, its here...

http://www.petitiononline.com/hammer72/petition.html

[stop]

My response:

Mark,

You're a genius! That's fucking poetry.

How about a little background? I saw the Muehlenkamp petition before it went up and specifically told Roberto -- who authored this stellar piece of prose (except for the inane quote that you refer to) -- that CODOH members would not sign a petition that specifically referred to them as "stupid" and told him it was insulting to suggest it but you know how believers are... it's 6M gassed Jews or nothing.

It's also my position that he did not want any revisionist signatures so that he could later say, "Hey, we offered a petition but they refused to sign it. " He's a bit of a sociopath.

I too suggested an alternative and here it is:

We do not endorse censorship of any kind, anywhere, regardless of topic. We call for a full renunciation of the medieval Holocaust Denial laws. We are likewise opposed to Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We are convinced that open, non-criminalized debate would quell any controversies much sooner than censorship or imprisonment and would thereby lay to rest any lingering doubt over the role Germany played in the Holocaust.

Here is his (predictable) reply:

No, Sir. This sounds like there’s some merit to your "lingering doubt", which is bullshit.

Your petition really is well written and professional, especially compared to that illogical crap RM wrote. One formatting suggestion? Here's your petition with my incorporated change:

[START]

To: The German Legislator's petition committee
We, the undersigned, believe that is immoral to enshrine History in law.

The German State's reaction to those who wish to provide an alternative narrative for what has become known as the 'Holocaust' is a horrendous misuse of the principles of jurisprudence. The custodial sentences given to Ernst Zuendel, Germar Rudolf, Sylvia Stolz and others are a clear demonstration that nothing has been learned from the past. It is our firm belief that their sentences should be revoked and the law of Germany changed to reflect a real acceptance of the principles of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.

In 'On Liberty' (1859), the British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote,

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

It is a sorry reflection on the German state that it deems it necessary to imprison individuals for nothing more than expressing sincere beliefs. Ironically, it is evocative of the fascism that they so desire to distance themselves from. It is a sign of weakness, of fear and shallow character.

We condemn it utterly.

We believe the time has come for Germany to show some courage. Sixty years of guilt, fear and shame have not allowed the nation to come to terms with its past. The time has come for a 'Realgeschichte' in which truth may be reached through competing narratives. To be afraid of this is to be afraid of the basis of all human knowledge.

Deutschland, wir glauben an Sie.


Sincerely,


[STOP]

All I did was make "We condemn it utterly." a separate paragraph. It presents a little better. If you have a reason for presenting it the way you did, disregard my suggestion. Possibly it could be incorporated into the preceding paragraph. Your choice.

It's people like you that give me hope and make me realize how illogical the current state of affairs is.

One more point. The German people are far, far too sophisticated to actually support imprisonment for free speech and they know the truth about the holocaust but they also have to function in the real world. By enforcing holocaust denial laws, they keep the Jews off their back and reason that if a few scholars have to sit in prison for the greater good of the people -- however repugnant it is -- so be it.

Simply fucking brilliant. Please let me know what I can to do to advance your petition.

Bankdraft.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Butch,

I see you’ve again been mouthing off about me on the CODOH Cesspit, where you know I’m not allowed to post. Shame on you.

My comments to your bitching you will find in my RODOH posts nos. 9865 and 9866 under

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=339.topic&start=26&stop=39

Jonathan Harrison said...

Butch's fellow antisemites on the Cesspit don't seem to approve of him posting here or on RODOH. Kiwichap writes: "Is there any way to put Bankdraft on ignore? I have a lot of young folk regularly reading CODOH, so the ignore feature would be a blessing."

With friends like these...

Butch said...

JH,

I'm going to let you get away with that one simply because I have shoved your face in the dirt so many times that even you deserve a victory now and again.

The post was deleted by the moderator as inappropriate but I suspect that will mean nothing to you.

What truly perplexes me about you is that I got insulted (the only real word to use) by a fellow CODOH member because I chose to do what I told RM I would do: post a link to the his HC petition.

Another CODOH member obviously found it objectionable and made his inappropriate -- but probably heartfelt -- comment.

Jonathan, I don't know you and I have no (real) animus toward you but do you ever think before you post? Do you possibly suffer from "Attention Deficit Disorder?" Do you actually process thought? Do you believe everyone to be as slow witted as you?

You are a PhD for fuck's sake and you're supposed to be able to follow logical arguments and are presumably educated in reasoning.

PhD, after all, stands for "Doctor of Philosophy" but your reasoning is so diaphanous, that you force me to call into question the UK educational system.

Butch.

P.S. It's a small point but further illustrates your cavalier style of thought; your last sentence should have read "With friends like that..." (not "these).

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Another CODOH member obviously found it objectionable and made his inappropriate -- but >probably heartfelt – comment.

Chances are that Butch wouldn't even mind being kicked in the ass as long as it happens for the "Revisionist" cause.

And as long as it’s heartfelt, of course. :-)

Jonathan Harrison said...

"Kicked" would just be the foreplay.

Butch said...

I'm guessing you're speaking from experience?

Butch said...

RM's latest utterly ridiculous statement (there's some original stuff at the end of you 'not talking behind someone's back').

Mr. Turley,

As I also don’t believe in talking about people behind their backs... but if I did, here's how I'd do it in 10 pages:

Following our discussion under this article on the HC blog, Mr. "Bankdraft" aka "Butch", though allegedly out of time to continue that discussion (so he told me at the end of his message of Friday, January 04, 2008 5:41:00 PM), has found the time to post on the Cesspit (where, as he should know by now, I am not allowed to post) a lengthy and somewhat distorted rendering/interpretation of my statements.

So much for the fellow's character, or absence thereof.

Let’s have a look at BD's CODOH post of Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:05 pm, then.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
jnovitz.

Looks like I more or less got to the bottom of the JH/RM business -- as much as you can with these sorts.

Couple of things first:

JH is genuinely slow-witted. I think he posts according to whichever two synapses are firing that particular day. I mention this, because of his limited intellect, his part is minimized. He just sort of kicked it off.

RH is just disingenuous. I’m guessing he is a real Jew whereas JH is just a goy who has gotten sucked into the holocaust game.
________________________________________


If anyone was still in doubt about BD being another Jew-hating scumbag, that should be settled now. I guess "RH" is supposed to be me. The suspicion that I'm "a real Jew" reveals the poor soul's paranoia (don't forget to check for Jews under your bed before going to sleep, BD), and his calling me "disingenuous" smacks of classic self-projection.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
Anyway, what you said about RM contacting your mate’s place of employment is true enough.
________________________________________


This shows that BD either cannot read or is an inveterate liar.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
Here’s the email that he (RM) allegedly sent to your mate’s place of business:

[START]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:31:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Guadalupe Salcedo" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Mr. David Phillips
To: contact@herbertsmith.com

Dear Sirs,

My name is Roberto Muehlenkamp, and I am a German citizen domiciled in Portugal.

I am writing to you in my capacity as a moderator of a historical discussion forum that you may find under shills . I thought it might interest you to know that a rather unpleasant character, a Holocaust denier posting under the alias «Lamb Supreme», among others, has claimed to be one of your attorneys or solicitors, by the name of David Phillips.

As I believe this to be a false claim, I hereby kindly ask you to forward this message to Mr. David Phillips, in case you have an attorney or solicitor by that name, so that he may contact me and clear up this matter. Should there be no David Phillips at Herbert Smith LLP, your communication in this sense will be sufficient clarification.

«Lamb Supreme» first claimed to be Mr. David Phillips at Herbert Smith in his post # 11 under http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=1573.topic&start=21&stop=39 . He repeated the claim in his post # 73 under http://p102.ezboard.com/Will-our-chief-troll-Lamb-Supreme-/frodohforumfrm25.showMessage?topicID=414.topic .

I thank you very much for your attention and remain,

With my best regards,
Roberto Muehlenkamp

[STOP]

I say allegedly because this is what he himself posted (apparently to defend himself, after you made the situation known to me in an earlier post to me on this thread) so it may have been edited but we’ll assume it’s true.
________________________________________


Our paranoid Jew-sniffer apparently got so carried away by his suspicions that he didn’t bother to look up the post that my e-mail to Herbert Smith was quoted from, my post # 8179 dated 26.02.2007, 18:35 hours.

That post was never edited (for if it had been, a remark identifying the author, date and time of the editing, automatically generated by the forum software, would show at the bottom of the message), which means that there was no modification of the e-mail’s text as quoted in that post following 26.02.2007, 18:35 hours.



BD

Quote:
________________________________________
He refers to “David Phillips” as a holocaust denier (which is tantamount to saying anti-semitic)
________________________________________


Actually Holocaust deniers can also be Hitler-kissers with no particular animus against Jews or just wisecrackers who think it’s cool to be "politically incorrect", and I didn’t refer to David Phillips as a Holocaust denier, as anyone reading my e-mail to Herbert Smith should realize. I pointed out that some Holocaust denier using the handle of "Lamb Supreme" had claimed to be David Phillips of Herbert Smith, and that I believed that claim to be false.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
and ostensibly sends it to his place of business to “clear this matter up. Had that been his intention, the way to have done it would have been to send it directly to DP
________________________________________


That’s what I would have done had I known Mr. David Phillips’s contact e-mail. As I didn’t, I saw no other possibility than to contact Herbert Smith.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
or as a minimum, verify employment first and then set about to “clear this matter up”
________________________________________


Had I been able to demonstrate that there was no David Phillips among Herbert Smith’s attorneys or solicitors at the time, my e-mail to Herbert Smith would have been unnecessary in order to expose "Lurkerthe" as a liar. In that case "Lurkerthe" would also not have been claiming the identity of a really existing person. Unfortunately I could neither demonstrate the former nor safely assume the latter, which is why I had to contact Herbert Smith to clarify the issue.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
but he is obviously trying to hurt the guy as indicated by the unnecessary us of the phrase holocaust denier.
________________________________________


Who was I supposed to be trying to "hurt" by the "unnecessary us of the phrase holocaust denier"? Mr. "Lurkerthe"? In what concerns that fellow, "holocaust denier" was nothing but an apt and accurate description of the capacity in which I had got to know him.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
Now this is kind of a long into to make my real point which is that when I asked RM about this,
________________________________________


What BD is obviously referring to is this "question" of his in his blog comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 5:41:00 PM:


Quote:
________________________________________
I have agreed that an embellishment was made by another poster at CODOH, still though, your email did refer to this "someone" with the de-facto pejorative "holocaust denier" (you might as well have said anti-semite) and you did contact his place of employment which, to me, is a bit over-the-top. Had your intention simply been to verify his identity or open a dialogue, you would have left "holocaust denier" out of your original email. No, it was meant to besmirch and harm this "someone".
________________________________________


BD

Quote:
________________________________________
RM defends himself by saying:

Quote:
“I didn’t contact the fellow’s place of employment. I contacted the place of employment of someone the fellow had falsely claimed to be, in the firm conviction that his claim was false and in order to inform the one he was impersonating that some less-than-recommendable character was impersonating him on an internet forum. The impersonated gentleman was grateful for the information, as I would have been in his place, and took advantage of it to publicly clear himself of any suspicion that he was identical with the impersonator.”

When you have a grown man expecting you to believe this sort of explanation, it makes getting to the bottom of things difficult. It’s like catching a kid with his hand in the cookie jar but the child looks you in the face and denies it. What else can you do? Or as I heard it said once, it’s like arguing with a drunk.
________________________________________


Note that the bigmouth has no arguments whatsoever against the correctness of my explanation. All he can come up with is hollow bluster and invective. What an @sshole.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
The entire situation is posted at HC under “Another note to Bankdraft”. It’s probably not worth reading and it’s a bit difficult to follow because of the HC practice of word (or sentence) parsing -- they take each sentence and line-by-line refute it.
________________________________________


Not necessarily every sentence and line, but every claim that can be individualized. I don’t see what’s wrong with this approach – other than BD’s inability to counter it, of course. And I don’t think BD can explain what’s supposed to make this approach inappropriate. Though he tries, and rather lamely so:

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
I’m sure they would counter with “That’s the idea!” but it really is just a lazy man’s way of posting
________________________________________


It’s beyond me how the effort that item-by-item comments call for can be considered a sign of "laziness", but then BD is obviously just trying to justify to himself and/or his fellow charlatans his inability to cope with his opponent in direct discussion.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
(they cut-and-past the original post into an easier to use word processor then paste it back into the comment block)
________________________________________


So now it’s supposed to be sinful to write a comment on a word processor and then copy it into the blog’s comment block? Just how much more ridiculous does this poor soul intend to become?

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
and doesn’t answer many questions
________________________________________


I don’t think my blog discussion with BD left any questions open, but if any of our readers should find any, please let me know. BD doesn’t seem to be willing or (as is more likely) able to do so.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
plus everything is taken out of context which further muddies the waters.
________________________________________


I would be surprised if this babbling charlatan could show any of his statements to have been taken out of context. Care to surprise me, BD?

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
I understand refuting a sentence (or ten) but when every sentence is refuted, well, it's like "arguing with a drunk".
________________________________________


I don’t see the similarity, and "every sentence" is nonsense, as explained above.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
Additionally the HTML set up at HC is pretty rudimentary so you’re reading quotes of quotes of quotes and it’s difficult to see who’s saying what about what.
________________________________________


That’s actually the only valid reason for disliking discussion on the HC blog, but the blog’s HTML for comments is what the Blogger software offers and I can do nothing about that. An easy way to solve BD’s problem, however, would be his posting on the RODOH forum. His preference for mouthing off about me on the Cesspit can hardly be due to HTML problems.

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
There may be some fruit at the bottom of all this. RM has agreed to draft and post a renunciation of holocaust denial laws petition at HC (and I’m assuming at R.O.D.O.H. as well) and when he does, I agreed to post a copy at CODOH.
________________________________________


Reading the above one would think that the "renunciation of holocaust denial laws petition" was BD’s idea, right? Now let’s look at who brought it up. From my blog comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57:00 AM:


Quote:
________________________________________
Independently of what JH may wish to respond to the above (from what I've seen of him he is very well able to speak for himself), I have a question for you:

Just how does the expression of condemnation that you claim you "would have" provided differ from JH’s statement that HC are opposed to anti-denial laws?

Was it just too matter-of-fact for your taste, did it not contain enough whining?

Or were you expecting something like an offer to hand in a petition or so?

In the latter case, I have a suggestion for you. Some time ago I drafted a petition to the legislator of the German Federal Republic, which I circulated on the RODOH forum for signature. I got several signatures from opponents of "Revisionism", but no "Revisionist" signature except from Scott Smith. The petition is worded as follows:

«Dear Legislator of the German Federal Republic,

We hereby request you to revoke the provisions of the Strafgesetzbuch whereby the praising, playing down or denying of violent crimes committed by the National Socialist regime constitutes a punishable criminal offense, as well as any other provisions whereby the dissemination of untruths in support of an extremist political line may be subject to criminal punishment.

We are of the opinion that such utterances should not be sanctioned by criminal prosecution. As the distinguished legal scholar Mr. Baumann of the Neue Juristische Wochenschrift said in 1994:

"Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muβ für die Leugnung der Scheuβlichkeiten und Verbrechen der jüngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten."

Source of quote:
Brigitte Bailer-Galanda/Wolfgang Benz/Wolfgang Neugebauer (Hrg.), Die Auschwitzleugner, 1996 Elefanten Press, Berlin, page 261.

Translation:

"Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past."

We are of the opinion that, however disgusting and offensive to certain people the utterance of such propagandistic untruths may be, the democratic state of right should rely on prevailing over them on the free marketplace of ideas. The means to keep the discontented in our society from being taken in by extremist hate speech should be education and information, not criminal prosecution.

Sincerely Yours,»

I intend to submit this petition to the competent bodies of the German Federal Republic once I have collected sufficient signatures. So here’s my proposition:

I shall circulate the above text to both "Revisionists" and opponents of "Revisionism" whose e-mail address I know, including you if you give me your e-mail address, asking every addressee to sign and circulate the text in order to obtain further signatures. Anyone receiving a text with, say, more than 100 signatures will be requested to add his own and send the text to my e-mail address. When I have collected a sufficient number of signatures (I welcome your input on what that number should be), I shall send out the petition.

Of course the petition is worded in a manner that may scratch your "Revisionist" ego, but I would be lying if I worded it so as to contain anything other than my firm and honest opinion (you may have noticed that the statement of German legal scholar Baumann quoted in the petition text has been my custom signature on RODOH for quite a while) about "Revisionist" baloney, and besides that’s the only way it stands any chance of getting attention from anyone important in the GFR. I'm positively sure that, if you come along with some crap about legitimate "doubt" and the need to listen to both "sides", they’ll just laugh their heads off and drop it in the rubbish bin.

So, Mr. "Bankdraft", are you interested in going along with my proposition to directly and expressly request the revocation of anti-denial laws from one of the states that applies such laws?

Please let me know as soon as possible.
________________________________________


BD’s only contribution to this undertaking, see his blog message of Friday, January 04, 2008 5:41:00 PM, was to suggest posting the petition on the HC blog and letting people sign it there as well. Yet now he’s trying to make it look as if he had fathered the baby. Does anyone still have doubts about the fellow’s intellectual (dis)honesty?

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
In fact he was kind enough to contact me (via HC) and explain why it hasn’t already been posted.
________________________________________


Actually my comment of Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:31:00 PM was merely meant for the purpose stated in its last sentence:


Quote:
________________________________________
PS to my comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 11:02:00 PM:

A blog post with the petition text, as per my comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57:00 AM, will go up next weekend.

The reason why it doesn’t go up today is that I would like to monitor the follow-up to such post (namely the whining it is likely to arouse on the Cesspit) from day one and might have no time to do so next week due to a business trip outside the country.

The above is just in case Mr. Bankdraft should feel like indulging in conjectures that I have "backed off" or so from my proposal.
________________________________________


BD

Quote:
________________________________________
A step in the right direction anyway.
________________________________________


One might think that it was BD who caused such "step" to be taken. Considering that the "step" was my idea, that the bolded quote in the petition text has been my custom signature on RODOH for longer than I can remember, and that HC clearly stated their position regarding denial laws in their opening post, our friend is obviously trying to adorn himself with someone else’s plumes.

At the end of his post, BD again mentions the petition as though it was his achievement:

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
Enough on that. Apparently RM is going to make available a petition so that’s worth something.
________________________________________


Poor fellow, he must be feeling a pathological need for applause.

There’s more baloney in BD’s post as he tries to get even with Jonathan. I leave to Jonathan the pleasure of responding to that crap and move on to BD’s post of Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:08 pm, where the bugger again mouths off about the "Herbert Smith" issue as follows:

BD

Quote:
________________________________________
Substitute "pedophile" for "holocaust denier" in RM's email and the effect is roughly the same. Roberto knew exactly what he was doing, that's why it's so childish to act coy about it.
________________________________________


I don’t remember having acted "coy" about having called the anonymous puke "Lurkerthe" (aka "jnovitz", aka "rossiabroad", aka "Sophie", aka "Elspeth Cohen", etc.), who I never thought to be identical with David Phillips of Herbert Smith LLP, a Holocaust denier. That’s as plain and factual a statement as calling a spade a spade, and so I told BD in my blog comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 11:02:00 PM:


Quote:
________________________________________
>I have agreed that an embellishment was made by another poster at CODOH, still though, your >email did refer to this “someone” with the de-facto pejorative “holocaust denier” (you might as >well have said anti-semite)

Both terms are as matter-of-fact as calling a spade a spade, in what concerns that "someone".
________________________________________


But then, being a "Revisionist" true believer and lying through your teeth just goes together, doesn’t it, BD?


BTW, when you get your tongue out of Turley's ass, let me know if you signed the petition or not. Really when you think about it they really are quite similar. Yours requires that revisionist refer to themselves as stupid and Turley's just asks the German government to grow some balls.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>RM's latest utterly ridiculous statement (there's some original stuff at the end of you 'not talking >behind someone's back').

>Mr. Turley,

>As I also don’t believe in talking about people behind their backs... but if I did, here's how I'd >do it in 10 pages:

Behind whose back am I supposed to have been talking, little man? Yours? You know the RODOH thread from which you’ve been quoting:

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=339.topic&start=26&stop=39

And you even have responded here to one of my posts there, IIRC. You furthermore should have realized that this is the thread I use to respond to your mouthing off about me on CODOH, so every time you do that you should check for my response on this RODOH thread. In other words, cut the crap.

>BTW, when you get your tongue out of Turley's ass,

Looks like the gun-toting Alabama red-neck is coming to the fore. :-)

>let me know if you signed the petition or not. Really when you think about it they really are >quite similar. Yours requires that revisionist refer to themselves as stupid and Turley's just asks >the German government to grow some balls.

I prefer mine, because it is my conviction that "Revisionists" are a bunch of stupid buggers. Mr. Turley’s petition fails to make that essential point and reads as if "Revisionist" crap had some merit, so it would be against my convictions to sign it. Of course I also don’t expect Mr. Turley to sign mine.

Butch said...

Just for my own peace of mind, does anyone still seriously doubt that RM is a sociopath?

He chides Hannover for calling him "names" then posts this:

To be sure, I have also called you and will keep on calling you a liar and a coward. But there’s a difference between my applying these designations to you and you calling me names. The difference is that my statements are accurate and appropriate.

Profile of the Sociopath:

This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning: They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self: Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying: Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt: A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions: When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love: [Puttinng your tongue up Turleys ass nay count as love -- better check with Jonathan]

Need for Stimulation: Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy: Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature: Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency: Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability: Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity: Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle: Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility: Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Just for my own peace of mind, does anyone still seriously doubt that RM is a sociopath?

>He chides Hannover for calling him "names" then posts this:

>To be sure, I have also called you and will keep on calling you a liar and a coward. But there’s a >difference between my applying these designations to you and you calling me names. The >difference is that my statements are accurate and appropriate.

Allow me a correction, my dear lying Butch (or is it just that your hysteria keeps you from reading properly?): the issue is not "Hannover" Hargis calling me names. The issues is his doing mendacious victory dances on a board where I am not allowed to post, falsely claiming that I was bested in debate there when actually he managed to overcome my inconvenient posting only through cowardly censorship (deleting or retaining my posts) and eventual banning. That’s what sucks about the fellow, and it should be clear enough from every post I have dedicated to his babbling on the thread

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=161.topic&start=1&stop=25

Next time, my dear Butch, try to read a little before writing.

As to the rest of your post: thanks for the self-portrayal. It more or less coincides with the impressions I have gained of you so far. And I'm sure it won't be lost on our readers either.

Butch said...

"Allow me a correction"

Certainly you are allowed a correction -- everyone is -- but I was under the impression that you didn't make any mistakes?

I'm also wondering why, if you are making the correction, I'm considered the liar?

No, you are indeed a sociopath. At first I put it down to hubris and bravado and I made my "hand in the cookie-jar" analogy so clearly I was hitting all around it but I have downgraded your condition to sociopathic.

There are very few people who would read this: "To be sure, I have also called you and will keep on calling you a liar and a coward. But there’s a difference between my applying these designations to you and you calling me names. The difference is that my statements are accurate and appropriate." and not consider you a either a school boy or... a sociopath.

It's not as bad as you think. There is no doubt as to your intelligence, or as Seneca calls it, "cleverness" (Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio) and most sociopaths lead normal, even quite creative lives (it's those around them who suffer, but what do you care, you're a sociopath!)

BTW, I am clearly differentiating between sociopath and psychopath.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any real treatment but even if there was, few sociopaths would take advantage of it because one of the primary symptoms is not believing they are ever at fault, preferring instead to think (or perhaps having no choice) they are indeed incapable of being at fault.

BTW, your "thanks for the self-portrayal. It more or less coincides with the impressions I have gained of you so far. And I'm sure it won't be lost on our readers either." is pretty weak don't ya think? You are much more creative than that. Kind of school-girl wouldn't you say?

'Course now that I know you are a sociopath (and you have de-facto admitted it), countering you becomes e-a-s-y.

I'm going to start posting under JH's thread ("a note to BD"), this one is waaaay too long... plus he makes more mistakes than you (he's even a bit embarrassing).

RODOH has turned out to be a good site. I haven't fully explored it but certainly exchanges are easier and there are more participants, so I thank you for that and wish you well.

Actually Roberto, I'm going to do more than that for you, I'm going to give you some advice that you can actually use. You should take your cleverness and turn it into some money and abandon this holohoax business (at least as a primary preoccupation).

It's doomed to a "Berlin-Wall" ending anyway and your cleverness is only going to last until you're about 40 or so, then the negative aspects of your disease will tip the scales toward regret and loneliness. Go make some cash while you can and live a bit.

BD

P.S. In a real twist of fate, I may get tossed from CODOH. I used the f-word and some nitwit complained. No resolution yet. Probably just get a warning but it would be ironic wouldn't you say? Now, go make some money.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>I'm also wondering why, if you >are making the correction, I'm >considered the liar?

Because you obviously made a claim against better knowledge.

As for the rest, thanks for continuing to display the sorry wacko you are. It's instructive and amusing.

Anonymous said...

I like your english grammar blog. It's a good blog for learn english grammar