Article 45727 of alt.revisionism:
Path: news3.digex.net!news2.digex.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.cais.net!zippy.cais.net!news
From: tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: BIG QUESTION - answered?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 13:36:58 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470
Lines: 391
Message-ID: <45mif6$l5c@zippy.cais.net>
References: <45c58v$odd@zippy.cais.net> <9OCT199523405804@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> <45goot$jvg@zippy.cais.net> <45jdko$2nl@zippy.cais.net> <12OCT199520220478@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm2-12.pacificnet.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

dmittleman@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) wrote:

>In article <45jdko$2nl@zippy.cais.net>, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>>dmittleman@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) wrote:
>>>In article <45goot$jvg@zippy.cais.net>, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>>>T>dmittleman@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) wrote:
>>>D>>In article <45c58v$odd@zippy.cais.net>, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...

>    [dumb discussion about the difference between "few" and "several"
>    deleted.]

	Daniel, you keeping using little barbs, here "dumb".  Isn't this
childlike?
	You said "several", I said how many exactly, you clarified "three".
I pointed out this might be a few, or one above a couple.  You
exaggerated.

>>>T>>>agree with the notion that every one has lied in their life time.  As
>>>T>>>to Jews being "more prone" I personally wouldn't know about their
>>>T>>>private lives.  I do know a bit about their stuff that gets ready
>>>T>>>accomodation in our medias.  Just after the Gulf War, and after
>>>D>>                     ^^^^^^
>>>D>>    You know, you can almost tell in advance which side of an issue people
>>>D>>    are going to come down on based on their level of literacy.  :>
>>>T>	Which part was it?  The part about "ready accomodation?
>> 
>>>    Well, you did spell "accommodation" wrong, but what I was reacting to
>>>    was your pluralizaiton of "media" (just as I underlined for you.)
>> 
>>	I see the Jewish faction out here likes to focus on a persons spelling
>>as if this is relevant to context.  It is kind of humorous in that
>>mispellings are rampant in and amid the accusations.  I didn't count
>>all of Daniel's mistakes, but the proof is right here within this
>>document.  See below where Daniel puts - nemorah -  in quote marks to
>>accentuate a previous misspelling and then three words later we are
>>given "antoher".  Daniel, do you imply that all kids that win spelling
>>bees become writers?  You even spelled "it" wrong below.

>    Actually, it isn't the Jewish faction.  Its us educated bigots who have
>    been focusing on peoples' spelling and grammar.  Now all of us make
>    typos in usenet as most of us do not take the trouble to use spell
>    checkers and typos will get by.  I haven't noticed any difference in
>    the rate of typos by stand on the Holocaust or by what I know of
>    peoples' education or religion.

	I'll try to figure out what your saying here later.  Maybe I'll take
it down to the school yard and get some kid to translate it. 
	I take it as a reply to your statement on my spelling, and my
subsequent pointing out your mistakes, one of which was your
mispelling the word - it.

>    But I and others have noticed a distinct difference in spelling,
>    grammar and English usage between those who are archivists
>    (exterminationists to some) and those who are deniers (revisionists to
>    some).  I can see the correlation, but I am unclear on the causality -
>    and invite others to consider theories.  Is it that Holocaust denial attracts
>    people of low education?  Is it that Holocaust denial attracts people who are
>    not intelligent?  Is it that Holocaust denial attracts people who see
>    the big picture and don't focus on details like spelling and grammar? 
>    Or is it that Holocaust denial attracts normal people and then changes
>    them in some way?

>    Anyway, Tom, you are far from the worst example of this correlation,
>    but I brought it up as I am addressing your posts.  Surely Marc Lemaire
>    and Les Griswald are much worse than you on this dimension.  However,
>    you have made some grammar mistakes that remind me of middle school or
>    weak high school writing  -- very different than the kind of writing I
>    have grown accustomed to reading in recent years.

	I guess we'll just have to keep an eye on your stuff for an example of
superiority in writing.  Your starting to drift.

>>    [Section on Israel debt repayment deleted.  This was addressed in
>>>    detail in a.r early in the year.  If someone else wants to review the
>>>    arguments for Tom that is fine with me.  I have no stomach for it. 
>>>    Short answer is: The US Congress forgave the loan so Israel didn't owe
>>>    anything.  You can debate whether or not it was a wise move on the part
>>>    of Congress; you can debate the semantics of how your original
>>>    statement was worded - you said "Israel has never repaid anything" the
>>>    thrust of which may be true if the entire debt was excused; but the
>>>    insinuation of your argument that Israel doesn't repay debts that is
>>>    owes, is untrue.]
>>>    In fact your wording (assuming you already knew all this) would be a
>>>    clear act of prevarification.  I.E., one example of lying by a non-Jew
>>>    (I presume you are a non-Jew.)
>>	Whether or not it was the Cranston Act or not that kept Israel from
>>repaying anything, the fact remains that Jews tried to say that Israel
>>has repaid all the "loans".  I believe writers from the Washington
>>Reports Mideast Affairs got some of their stuff in the press to set
>>the record straight.  Write them for the particulars.

>    As I said, to me it is semantics whether one says "they repaid their
>    loans" or one says "they don't owe money".  It is the kind of thing
>    that is brought up by people looking to make trouble, not by people
>    looking for a way for all of us to live together better.  

	Maybe we could say they never repaid the money so they don't owe any.
As I said the Treasury records will show a absolute figure of over 60
billion dollars to Israel.  Marty, do you think it was better to give
them the money than say the American Indians. 
	
>>>T>>>       Recently a rabbi given the usual accomodation in L.A. Times,
>>>T>>>tries to imply the Jews played a major role in the American
>>>T>>>Revolution. (Pete Wilson had once introduced legislation to have a
>>>T>>>statue erected in Washington commemorating some remote Jewish figure
>>>T>>>from the era.)  In a highlighted box of the rabbi's endeavor we were
>>>T>>>given a statement from the Talmud.  The rabbi's version was "Whosoever
>>>T>>>saves a single soul is as if he saved the entire world"  The real
>>>T>>>statement is "Whosoever saves a single Jewish soul is as if he saved
>>>T>>>the whole world." (see Jews for Judaism web site)
>>>D>>    I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make here.  
>>>T>	The point is, he didn't give the full statement.  What is the out come
>>>T>if a goyim life is saved?
>>>    I have no idea what the Talmud actually says.  Would you care to
>>>    provide us with the original (Is it in Hebrew?) and with an
>>>    authoritative translation into English.
>> 
>>	First of all Daniel, I think your not telling the truth when you say
>>you have no idea what the Talmud says.  I would say it is the core of
>>your thinking.

>    Ha!  My thinking?  You, obviously, have absolutely no idea what my
>    religious beliefs are, do you?  My priests?  Try Popper, Feyerabend,
>    Cook and Campbell, Feynman.

	I believe the record shows (L.A. and N.Y. times) that the Catholic
Church is accused of being complicit in the "Holocaust".  What do you
think?

>>	You evidently didn't cover my treatment where I gave the source of the
>>"save a Jew - save the world" statement which was "Jews for Judaism",
>>who have a page on the web.  Ask them about any translations.

>    Yup, just went and looked.  They translate the Talmud just as you say. 
>    But my question still remains, is this the conventional translation? 
>    Just cause a group which appears (at my first glance) to be roughly the
>    700 Club of Judaism interprets the Talmud in a particular way does not
>    mean that mainstream Judaism does so.

	Daniel, above you said "Just cause ..."  Don't you mean 'Just because
.'  Your the one who keeps diverting to the spelling, grammatical
tangent.
	Either way I would assume any outfit called "Jews for Judaism" should
be an authority on any translation.
	Just for the sake of propriety, why don't you give a reply on the
condition it is a correct "translation".
	

>>>T>	Check L.A.Times archives for first incident.  Then try to show there
>>>T>were others before it.  All articles involved Jews, not aetheists.
>> 
>>>    Two points here:
>> 
>>>    1. You brought up the incident.  The onus is on you to provide
>>>    appropriate citations.  Appropriate citations (at least in the academic
>>>    world in which I function) must be sufficiently precise to allow me to
>>>    find exactly the information you are working from.  "Check the L.A.
>>>    Times" does not cut it.  Even giving me that date of the paper would
>>>    not cut it.  Give me the article, the page, the date, and the paper. 
>>>    Then the responsibility is on me to go read it and comment.

>    I see you chose not to address this point.  Do you, then, agree?  Or
>    did you choose not to respond for another reason?

	AS pointed out before, your the one who keeps resorting to call on
others to fill in details, and things not in proper "context" which
you fail to give us.  Your the one who said "I don't have the stomach
for it."

>>>    2. Marty Kelley did an excellent job of addressing the substance of
>>>    your points on the "nemorah" topic in antoher post today under this
>>>    subject line.  I direct readers to Marty's post to follow this topic.

>>>T>>>states to the point it got so rediculous that a young Jewish girl in
>>>T>>>N.H. demanded that a number of kids stop singing Christmas carols in
>>>T>>>the halls of a school.  What would happen if a Palestinian tried this
>>>T>>>in Israel? Eventually the Jews got a U.S. court to deem the menorah a
>>>D>>    Well, Israel is a "Jewish State" while the U.S. is a "Freedom of
>>>D>>    religion" state.  So I expect the results of a challange might be very
>>>D>>    different in Israel.
>>>T>	"Very different"? Could ypu give a hypothetical scenario?  If the U.S.
>>>T>has a "separation of church and state" clause in it's constitution
>>>T>does this mean that U.S. support for Israel is a hypocrisy?
>>>    No more so that our support for Saudi Arabia (a Moslem state) or
>>>    Britain (a Church of England state).
>>	Daniel, we don't give Saudi Arabia anything.  We buy.  We buy oil.  We
>>don't give the Church of England anything. We have given Judaism

>    We defended Saudi Arabia in a war just four years ago.  We have
>    treaties with Britain promising to come to their aid if attacked.

	I believe the Saudis payed their share.  Are you asserting it was the
Saudis that called on the U.S. to protect them?  Treaties are
different than paying out Dole.  Are you a teacher there at the
college?  Is this the kind of reasoning powers you would teach
students?

>>billions of dollars.  Treasury records would show outright money given
>>to be at least 60 billion dollars.  As to other monies that come from
>>our association with Israel Former Secretary of State George Ball puts
>>the figure at 500 billion.  Jews get more every year than American

>    500 billion, huh?  How did Ball come up with such a number?

	Well Daniel, here I have given you the source for information and now
you are asking me where Ball came up with the number.  Don't you see
Daniel, even when someone gives you direct sources that you keep
harping for it is not enough.

>>>    The results of a challange would be different in Israel as Israel is a
>>>    Jewish state and the religion has a place in its government (I am not
>>>    an expert on Israel, so I apologize if I get details about them wrong.)
>>	I think your telling another big one here Daniel.  You certainly can
>>come up with the defenses.

>    Huh?  What defenses?

	see above and below.

>>>T>>>the menorah are; it can be found on the altars of all synagogues, on
>>>T>>>the interior and exterior walls as a bas relif or sculpture.  There
>>>T>>>are even synagogues that go by the name of "Menorah Synagogue".  The
>>>T>>>menorah can be found in religious context in archeological ruin in
>>>T>>>Israel.  The whole dictionary sequence takes us to the religious
>>>T>>>connection.  To say that the menorah is not a religious symbol is a
>>>D>>    I agree with you that the menorah is a religious symbol and I suspect
>>>D>>    that most Jews would also agree with this.  This is why your assertion
>>>D>>    of the court finding does not ring true.  Again, please provide the
>>>D>>    court cite.
>>>T>	I don't know what most Jews would say, only what is reported in the
>>>T>papers.  See above for court case.  Check L.A. Times archives for more
>>>T>on the secular angle. 
>>>    Provide me with a citation of the exact case.  Provide me with
>>>    citations for the L.A. Times articles you are pulling information from.
>>	Daniel keeps asking for documentation, when in fact I have directed
>>him to the sources each time.  This is not enough for Daniel, he wants
>>it laid out in detail when in fact he keeps saying that statements I
>>submit could be "out of context" without filling us in on the details.
>>He also keeps on referring to the subject being adressed in detail and
>>calls on others to come forth with the information.  Above he says in
>>context with documentation "I have no stomach for it".

>    There is a pretty well established norm in academia (and we all are
>    practicing History - an academic subject - here, are we not?)  You make
>    an assertion.  People call you on your assertion.  You back it up.  

>    If you don't, then most people are going to dismiss you and your ideas.

	Your still talking for other people.

>    And I have no stomach for making arguments back to you that have been
>    raised and addressed in this conference several times.  If I thought
>    you were really innocent or really wanted to learn then I would.  But I
>    don't think that.  If others want to placate you, fine.  I won't.  And
>    I tend to turn to experts to address questions rather than talk about
>    things I know nothing about.  You have raised some questions where I
>    know there is expertise elsewhere in this conference; I've called upon
>    them to address you.  In fact, I thought Marty Kelley did a pretty good
>    job giving Court citations and history to the points you raised in that
>    arena.  he certainly addressed you better than I could.

>>>T>>>	Right now at this time Jews are telling us, now that the numbers have
>>>    Actually, I have learned most of what I know about this topic from Ken
>>>    McVay and Jamie McCarthy.  Neither of them are Jewish.
>>	OK. Theres two.  Are these guys paid for there stuff?  Actually
>>coverage of McVay's cite found it's way into the L.A. Times.  They
>>gave us his cite adress but didn't give the cites of any opposition. 

>    1. They have stated here many times that they are not paid for this
>    stuff.  McVay has detailed the equipment support and donations he's
>    recevied.

>    2. Even if the L.A. Times did not give the site URLs of denier pages,
>    if someone found McVay's page from the article they would have found
>    the URLs on McVay's page.  So while *maybe* you can fault the Times for
>    not providing the URLs, you certainly cannot fault McVay.

	Daniel, do you have any theory why the Times would give us his page
adress and not the others?  Is this fair?
	Personally I think McVay is crazy for giving out other sites, their
more direct and McVays page is loaded with inconstencies.  
	Maybe your the one who can answer this, on McVay's page it implies
3.1 million German Jews were shuffled off to extermination and in the
SWC page it say's there were never more than 600 thousand Jews in
Germany.

>>>T>>>been reduced, they never included the Auschwitz numbers into the totaL
>>>D>>    Huh?  What numbers have been reduced?  Do you mean the Soviet and
>>>D>>    Polish claim of 4 million killed at Aushwitz?  Well, that is pretty
>>>D>>    straight forward.  The Poles were stretching the number to 4 million to
>>>D>>    show that Polish martyrs (I presume Catholic Polish martyr or atleast
>>>D>>    Communist Polish martyrs) were killed in mass quantities by the Nazis. 
>> 
>>	Here we go again with the Poles and Soviets did it.  Daniel, if we did
>>a count of how many times the 4 million made it into the press, and
>>say we could come up with 1000 accounts, how many would be by the
>>Soviets or Poles and how many by Jews.  I don't recall ever seeing a
>>article with them pushing the number.

>    You are asking how many articles in American papers are/were written by
>    Soviets or Poles?  On every single topic in the world they wrote many
>    less American articles than American journalists have.  And as you have
>    so deftly pointed out, many American journalists happen to be Jewish.  

	I don't think we were and are talking about "every single topic" in
the world.  Oh yea, wheres your documentation?

>    Your argument above makes no sense.

>>	You do realize there are probably a number of people and orgs. that
>>have a record of Holocaust topics in the press.
	
	"Probably"?  I'm going to ask you ala yourself, where is your
documentation?

>    Yeah, so?

>>>D>>    The propoganda they put out which claimed the 4 milllion number was
>>>D>>    very clear about this.  This point really isn't being disputed by
>>>D>>    anyone who knows this material and literature.  If you are going to
>>>D>>    dispute it you ought to begin by showing that you have a good
>>>D>>    understanding of the information put forth by the Poles and the Soviets
>>>D>>    and then by showing why that information actually meant something other
>>>D>>    than what they were saying.  I haven't seen you approach these issues
>>>D>>    at all.
>>>T>	Notice how I respond between your statements and not within.
>>>T>I'm sure there are plenty of orgs. that have a record of Jewish stand
>>>T>on the four million.  
>>>    Fine.  Name one.

>    I notice you don't address this point.

>>>T>>>99.99999 percent of the perpetuation has come from the Jewish
>>>T>>>community.  Media records can show that up to fifteen years ago the
>>>     What media records.  Please provide a cite or two.

>    I notice you don't address this point.

>>>T>	OK - Lets make it 99.999 percent [of the information put forth
>    about the Holocaust comes from Jews].  Would the record show it to be
>>>T>inaccurate because of Jewishness of it all? No. It would show
>>>T>inaccurate.  What it does show is that it wasn't the Polish or Soviets
>>>T>who perpetuated the numbers as Nizkor and the SWC would have us
>>>T>believe.
>>>    Interesting thesis.  How then do you explain the sign the Polish
>>>    governement had up at Aushwitz commemorating the four million Catholic
>>>    Poles who died there?
>>	I believe the documented interchange in this skirmish shows that I
>>raised some topics that have been avoided.  One is the Jewish entrance
>>into Spain and another is my asserting that the "Southwest Jewish
>>Archive" is racist and anti-Catholic.

>    Agreed.  I did not address either the Jewish entrance into Spain or the
>    "Southwest Jewish Archive".  I did not address either as I know nothing
>    about either.  I have no knowledge that what you say on these topics is
>    incorrect, however based on your track record on topics I know
>    something about I would not put down much money that you are correct. 
>    If there is any error in your statements on these topics I can only
>    hope that someone else addresses them.  Remember, you began this
>    thread.  I chose to address a few of the topics you raised.  You might
>    call me for avoidance if I have dropped some topics I initially
>    addressed (and I have), but it seems disengenous to call me for
>    avoiding topics I chose never to address at all.

	"Southwest Jewish Archive" Daniel, it's a web site. Look it up.  Here
again you have been directed to a source as you keep harping on and
keep getting but you choose to veer off.  Look it up.  A couple of
clicks here and there and your in.
	But then again, here you are again saying "...I can only hope that
someone else addresses them."
	Your last two lines above are a whopper of something.  I'll take them
down to the school yard too for translation.

>    On the other hand you, in the paragraph above, completely ignore the
>    point I make about the well documented sign at Aushwitz.  That sign
>    destroys your whole thesis about the 4 million Jews at Aushwitz.  If
>    you aren't going to address the sign, you are avoiding an important
>    point.

	Daniel, you keep directing us to this "sign" outside of Auschwitz as
proof that the Poles and the Soviets are the ones that perpetuated the
4 million.  Daniel, let me ask you this sincere question, Is this 100
percent of the story or is .0001 percent of the story?  Take note of
he word "perpetuated".  

>===========================================================================
>daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (520) 621-2932

>       "I can't complain, but sometimes I still do..."  -- Joe Walsh

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor