Archive/File: pub/people/w/weber.mark/webers.feet
Last-Modified: 1996/02/21


I deeply regret having to tell you that the author of the
following article passed away in early 1996, still waiting for
Mark Weber to respond.

Ken McVay
The Nizkor Project

From: Kineahora@cup.portal.com (Chana - Braun)
Message-ID: <59136@cup.portal.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 13:42:59 PDT
References:  

pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP (Pete Faust) writes:
 
 >     You holocaust GENTLEMEN say Revisionists are not worth
 > debating; however, Elie Wiesel promised to debate Mark Weber,
 > then refused to do so.  Is this kosher?  There is, I am
 > certain, a far more important motive for not debating...
 > being TOTALLY DEVASTATED.
 
Let's be truthful here, Mr. Faust. Elie Wiesel never PROMISED to debate
Mark Weber, did he? Elie Wiesel does not break promises and I have
excellent evidence that Mark Weber colors the truth (to put it mildly) in
regards to debates.
 
Let's look at this evidence, shall we?
 
On another computer network, there was someone who was presenting Holocaust
Denial and was very frustrated because he was so successfully rebuted. He
then said that he would get someone from the IHR to enter the discussion
and he was told that anyone was welcome on the system - even someone from
the IHR.
 
Now, let's see how that situation developed. The following is an exchange
between the Holocaust Denier who had made the statement above and his
opponent who had told him that anyone was welcome to join the discussion.
The Holocaust Denier's words will follow the ">" and the replies will
follow the ">>". This exchange took place last November.
 
 
 > Your insistent demands for a debate with a representative from the
 > Institute for Historical Review have been accepted.  I sent them your
 > private proposal for this (which followed earlier proposals I had made
 > to them along these lines) and they have just contacted me accepting,
 > but with several standard provisos as to how the debate should be
 > conducted.
 
 > I have submitted a public message on the Arts Club Board outlining the
 > provisos and also contacted the Board leadership concerning this.  Also,
 > Mr. X's public message about a Holocaust debate has been publicly
 > replied to by me.
 
 > I am hoping that these two public messages will appear shortly.  Please
 > review the Board to see them when they appear.
 
 > I strongly urge you to deal with me privately to iron out the details
 > rather than a series of public board messages.
 
 > Mr. Weber from the IHR will be the representative of the revisionist
 > position but he will have to submit his statements through me because
 > the IHR is not set up for modem communications and does not have a
 > [network] membership. He is an expert in this field.
 
 > Please reply to me privately about this as soon as you can; I will need
 > to get back to Mr. Weber on your response.
 
 > Thankyou.
 
 ---------
 
The reply to the above letter is missing but the following letter from the
Holocaust Denier allows us to understand what the response was.
 
 ---------
 > I am still awaiting the Arts Club leader's response to the message I
 > sent her about the debate.  Before I get back to you on this, I have to
 > hear from her that the debate is ok by her.  Once I hear from her I will
 > send your response, and hers, to Mr. Weber.
 
 > The two public board messages that I submitted have both been returned
 > to me with the note that she will be privately contacting me about this
 > thing.
 
 > Then when both responses are sent to Mr. Weber, and assuming that the
 > Arts Club will allow the debate, he can give more details as to how the
 > debate should be run, you and I can discuss it (privately that is via
 > E-mail), and then we can work out agreement on the format.
 
 > I hope you noted that Mr. Weber will be sending all his input through
 > me; i.e. his input will appear under my I.D. but each time with a brief
 > one-liner noting that it is HIS input, not mine. I presume this is ok
 > with you?
 
 > Will you be the individual debating him? And if so do you agree to be
 > the ONLY person, i.e. with no assistance from others?
 
 > I think we'll both have to discuss how to put up messages so that the
 > censors don't start chopping away and thus destroy the whole thing. 
 > We've both had a problem with this so we're both in the same boat there.
 
 > As from NOW I am putting up no more public messages on the Arts Club AT
 > ALL so that if/when the debate starts everything that appears under my
 > I.D. will be clearly only from Mr. Weber. Mr. X suggested a good idea
 > also, that NEITHER of us submit any messages at all until the debate is
 > over.  If we both desist as of now, then within a few weeks all of our
 > messages will have disappeared. Thus there will be nothing improper
 > happening in the sense that one side or the other would appear to be
 > putting up more than the agreed-upon number of statements and rebuttals
 > (whatever we do agree upon, that is).  Will you agree to this?  If so,
 > I repeat that this means that you would have to stop putting up messages
 > as of NOW.  Private E-mail, of course, is another story.
 
 > I agree that once we agree on the format of the debate, the details
 > should go onto the public board beforehand. I would also like to somehow
 > persuade the Arts Club, and I'm sure you would too, to make an
 > announcement on the Club's opening page for perhaps a week or so
 > beforehand.
 
 > This means that you, I, and anybody else interested in this should be
 > encouraged to urge the Arts Club 'leader' to make this announcement
 > a.s.a.p.  Note that Mr. Weber made this an important proviso to his
 > participation, and we all will benefit.  Your thoughts?
 
 > As to sources, documentation and so on, once I have the response from
 > [Art's Club Leader) and I send that response along with your replies to
 > me, to Mr. Weber, we will see what he passes on to me as to his ideas on
 > this.  The interpretation as to what constitutes 'documented facts',
 > second party accounts, eyewitnesses' statements and scholarly works may
 > be entirely relative, but we'll see what Mr. Weber says about this issue
 > - at any rate I'm sure that you and he can work this issue of source
 > material out satisfactorily, and quickly too I hope. 
 
 > So already we seem to agree on almost everything you put in your note to
 > me. I have no doubt that the details of format, sources, etc. will
 > similarly be worked out, so long as we are both sincere in wanting a
 > free and fair public debate.
 
 > Thankyou for getting back to me.  I look forward to your response to
 > these two notes.
 
 ------------
 >> Frankly, I don't understand your need to get any type of approval from
 >> the Arts Club leader. Throughout [the network] there are
 >> confrontations, discussions and debates on various issues. This is just
 >> one more. None of the others are advertised in any manner and I see no
 >> need to advertise this one. In fact, involving the Arts Club leader
 >> might be counter-productive in that it calls attention to this single
 >> debate and, if it ever begins, our messages might undergo closer
 >> scrutiny by the censors. I don't think either of any of us wants that.
 
 >> Also, you seem to be stating or implying that *I* am the one
 >> responsible for Mr. Weber's willingness to become a party to the
 >> discussion. If I remember correctly, this whole discussion started
 >> because you posted some messages championing the position of the IHR.
 >> I responded. Then you started a thread to discuss Leuchter and his
 >> report. I responded to that and you left that thread altogether.
 >> Perhaps it was because of a lack of time (which you stated in several
 >> messages) but, if so, there will be just as much time required if you
 >> are going to input all of Mr. Weber's remarks.
 
 >> I am an amateur (i.e. I don't get paid by anyone to research the
 >> Holocaust, I am not employed by anyone or any organization that has an
 >> interest in the Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.). You have
 >> presented yourself in the same manner. Mr. Weber, I think you would
 >> agree, is a professional. There is no prohibition against him joining
 >> the discussion but I do think it odd that you ask that *I* not ask for
 >> any outside help when you are bringing in a professional.
 
 >> I guess the main question is: Do you and Mr. Weber desire to have an
 >> open discussion or not? If so, post a message (either on your own or
 >> one on behalf of Mr. Weber). That is the manner in which all other
 >> discussions are initiated on [the network] and I don't see any need to
 >> make an exception for this one.
 ---------------
 
There was absolutely no response to that reply and nothing more was heard
concerning the possibility of an open discussion on that network until the
February 1992 issue of the IHR Newsletter. Here, then is the way that it
was reported (and keep in mind that Mark Weber is the editor of the
Newsletter).
 
"In the January Newsletter I told about an IHR activist who had received a
challenge to publicly debate the Holocaust on [the network] open forum
bulletin board computer service - the largest interactive computer network.
 
...After we promptly offered Mark Weber to represent that Revisionist [sic]
side, XXX suddenly flip-flopped. Deciding that she is not a 'scholar' after
all, but merely an 'amateur,' she complined that it would be 'unfair' for
her to have to face a professional historian."
 
 -----------
 
The plot in this story thickens. The one opposing the Holocaust Deniers on
that network wrote a letter to the editor of the Newsletter (i.e. Mark
Weber). Since the IHR is such a staunch champion of Freedom of Speech, it
seems strange that 3 months later, that letter has still not received a
reply much less been printed in the IHR Newsletter.
 
Here, then, is the letter that the IHR Newsletter refuses to print or even
acknowledge:
 
                                   February 27, 1992
 
Mark Weber, Editor
IHR Newsletter
Institute of Historical Review
1822 1/2 Newport Blvd.
Suite 191
Costa Mesa, CA  92627
 
Dear Mr. Weber:
 
I read with interest the article in your IHR Newsletter #85 February 1992
concerning [the network] and me.  This is truly a work of revisionism (e.g.
distorting the facts to fit into your personal view of the world) and,
since those connected with the IHR claim that they are eager to be taken
seriously, it is surprising that I was not contacted for comment before you
went to press.
 
Let's get the facts straight.  Your "IHR activist" was posting messages
denying the Holocaust.  I responded.  He claimed that no one was willing to
debate the Holocaust.  This, of course, is absurd.  I told him that he
could name his sources and begin.  He posted a message about The Leuchter
Report.  I rebutted his erroneous statements.  (By the way, I don't believe
he has read the report.  You might want to check on that before you
encourage his "activism" too much.)  He then suddenly claimed on the public
board that he didn't have time to debate and he was trying to get someone
online from the IHR.  I responded by telling him that everyone was welcome. 
That is when he contacted you and you agreed to come online.
 
What your "IHR activist" presented to me were a set of ridiculous
conditions.  They included that the debate take place only between you and
me and that it be advertized on [the network].  I was told to contact the
"Arts Club Leader" to urge her to agree.  First, [the Arts Club Leader]
doesn't have the authority to grant such requests.  Even if she did, as I
told your "activist," there are no precedents to such a closed debate on
Prodigy and that involving the Arts Club Leader might even be counter-
productive.  My reasoning was this:  "In fact, involving the Arts Club
leader might be counter-productive in that it calls attention to this
single debate and, if it ever begins, our messages might undergo closer
scrutiny by the censors. I don't think either of us wants that."  In fact,
since you are such a champion for "open debate," I was very surprised that
you wished for this one to be closed to others.
 
One of the amusing requirements for your participation in the debate was an
agreement by me that I would have no outside help (whatever that means). 
This amusement I expressed to your "activist" in the following quote:  "I
am an amateur (i.e. I don't get paid by anyone to research the Holocaust,
I am not employed by anyone or any organization that has an interest in the
Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.).  You have presented yourself in
the same manner.  Mr. Weber, I think you would agree, is a professional. 
There is no prohibition against him joining the discussion but I do think
it odd that you ask that I not ask for any outside help when you are
bringing in a professional."
 
If you notice, I claim amateur status because I don't get paid - not
because I am not a "scholar" or because it would be "unfair" for me to have
to debate a professional.  Yet, you are apparently so frightened of
debating in a situation where you cannot control all the factors that I
heard nothing else from you or your "activist."  Please notice, I did not
say I wouldn't agree to your terms regarding outside help.  I only said
that I found it "odd" that a professional would insist on such a term
before debating an amateur.
 
However, the greatest part of your article had to be the sub-headline of
"Another Anti-Revisionist Gets Cold Feet."  I assure you, Mr. Weber, that
my feet are toasty warm.  In fact, I closed my message to your "activist"
with the following:  "I guess the main question is:  Do you and Mr. Weber
desire to have an open discussion or not?  If so, post a message (either on
your own or one on behalf of Mr. Weber).  That is the manner in which all
other discussions are initiated on [the network] and I don't see any need
to make an exception for this one."
 
I am still waiting for an answer to that question.  What temperature are
your feet, Mr. Weber?
 
                                        Sincerely,
 
 
 
 ----------------------
 
Knowing all of the above, Mr. Faust, I hope you realize why I so cynically
view your claims about Elie Wiesel as similar in nature and, therefore,
more revisions of the truth. BTW, why don't you check with Mark Weber and
find out why he refuses to print the above letter or acknowledge it.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                |                                      |
 | Kineahora - Never Again!       |  If the Party could reach into the   |
 | Kineahora@cup.portal.com       |  past and say of this or that event  |
 |                                |        -=it never happened=-         |
 |                                | surely that was more terrifying than |
 | My opinions are my own but my  |       mere torture and death.        |
 | facts belong to the world.     |              George Orwell - 1984    |
 |                                |                                      |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

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