Monday, September 18, 2006

McNally 'too crude' even for Cesspit

Well, that didn't last long. Only a few hours after Andrew pulverized McNally's '95 Theses', the Cesspit moderator (read: Hannover)posted the following message:
Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:26 am
This list, while rich with basic Revisionist facts, is simply too crude. The list is gone, this thread will be removed.

Full credit to Hargis for realising that someone ranting about the 'joos' is 'too crude'. Perhaps he might then realise that saying 'judeo-supremacist' is only a couple of junior high grades above?

As to Sergey's question is Patrick McNally's brain rotting, the answer is obvious: he sold it on


  1. Gee, that's too bad...those statements were a model for Holocaust denial...they demonstrated their ignorance, incoherence, code-word rhetoric, Hitler-worship, paranoia, and hypocrisy all in one swell foop.

  2. "Can you respond to this without ad hominem? I'll bet $100 you can't"

    Yes, I can respond without using ad hom. The response I choose to make is, "I agree with you, you are so brilliant". How can I arrange to collect my $100?

  3. Kindly direct me to the right thread so that I can arrange to collect my winnings.

  4. Well, duh, the post by Andrew going through the 95 theses.

    Not that it would make much difference, since Andrew's bet was with McNally and not you. Reading comprehension problems again, Chickenvox?


Please read our Comments Policy