quote:Originally posted by ben: The sheer witlessness...
And yet your rather mean-spirited opening gambit right at the top of the thread was:
quote:Your own flesh recoils against itself. Please die now.
The fact is, m8 - if you don't want to converse with me in any way, then for pity's sake don't. Spoiling any thread I might post on any topic with one of your moronic backhand remarks is childish in the extreme. It might go down well with some of your little mates on here, but any outsider could very easily conclude that you are some sort of failed classroom clown; the suggestion that any of my remarks are 'witless' is a pretty obvious case of the pot calling the kettle a negro.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
If my thread being hijacked by Ben's fuckwittery were not enough, it now appears to have been turned into a right royal Benfest. So i'll leave you all to enjoy the celebrations.
I really do hope you changed that nappy, m8.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The fact is, m8 - if you don't want to converse with me in any way, then for pity's sake don't. Spoiling any thread I might post on any topic with one of your moronic backhand remarks is childish in the extreme. It might go down well with some of your little mates on here, but any outsider could very easily conclude that you are some sort of failed classroom clown; the suggestion that any of my remarks are 'witless' is a pretty obvious case of the pot calling the kettle a negro.
Well - it was two-thirty in the morning. I guess I must have been drunk or something; in all honesty I have no recollection of seeing the thread prior to yesterday morning. At any rate, while I don't think much to a feeble two-liner as a way of dealing with you, I can certainly understand what drove my drunker self to react in that way.
A week of watching you peddle slime on another forum keyed me up for it, I suppose - second-hand, shop-worn, years-old slime at that. Having refuted much of it myself on this forum over a period of years, I was pretty outraged (though not, ultimately, surprised) to see you simply wheel your stall across to a forum where - by their own admission - 'fluffy' is the prevailing mood and few are likely to be willing or able to take apart the tissue of half-truth and distortion you've devoted so much energy to creating (or at least appropriating from other deniers).
As for 'childishness' and 'pathetic insults': tmo has a long and colourful tradition of mean, offensive and lavatorial humour being deployed in combat - something you have steadfastly refused to contribute anything remotely original or amusing to. "Bum! Poo! Bum! Poo" may be your idea of devastating wit, but an image of a Rick-faced whippet abluting its rear end over a tinkling bidet at least tries to say something novel about your merits as a poster or lack thereof.
quote:Originally posted by ben: Well - it was two-thirty in the morning. I guess I must have been drunk or something; in all honesty I have no recollection of seeing the thread prior to yesterday morning. At any rate, while I don't think much to a feeble two-liner as a way of dealing with you, I can certainly understand what drove my drunker self to react in that way.
This is rather weak, but I'll take it as you say it. We all say things we really mean at such times, but I did think that your interjection was completely at odds with the spirit of the bulletin board, TMO or otherwise.
quote:A week of watching you peddle slime on another forum keyed me up for it, I suppose - second-hand, shop-worn, years-old slime at that. Having refuted much of it myself on this forum over a period of years...
In truth I don't think you 'refuted' much as I didn't actually say that much. It was pretty much the same with the thread on Handbag - I voiced what were essentially a series of doubts, and had some moron throw swathe after swathe of copied and pasted text at me. This heavy-handed methodology clearly lacked your sense of manufactured wit, but was not really that different in substance. In any case if I remember correctly your 'refutation' consisted mainly of barbed insults completely unrelated to whatever topic we might have been discussing.
Still, I consider all of that to be water under the bridge; we both have our ideas about where we both stand and there's no point ploughing through the same sullied earth again.
quote:I was pretty outraged (though not, ultimately, surprised) to see you simply wheel your stall across to a forum where - by their own admission - 'fluffy' is the prevailing mood and few are likely to be willing or able to take apart the tissue of half-truth and distortion you've devoted so much energy to creating (or at least appropriating from other deniers).
Your sense of outrage is misplaced. The people on the News forum pretty much stand out from the rest of Handbag (in particular the rabble that congregate in General Chat) and the atmosphere was far from 'fluffy'. Had it been a matter of my posting simply for the viewing pleasure of fluffy types, the thread would never had become such a talking point; indeed it would have fizzled out pretty quickly.
quote:As for 'childishness' and 'pathetic insults': tmo has a long and colourful tradition of mean, offensive and lavatorial humour being deployed in combat...
Fair point in itself, but I'd hope you you'd agree that jumping in on a thread with an uncalled for insult is not exactly in the spirit of bulletin board posting. It was a fresh thread, and I asked a fairly reasonable question; it's hardly what I would have called a 'combat' situation. Unless, of course, you were out to start a war. But then you say that you cannot remember posting it anyway, so let's just forget it eh?
quote:...something you have steadfastly refused to contribute anything remotely original or amusing to. "Bum! Poo! Bum! Poo" may be your idea of devastating wit...
It's not intended to be witty; it's just a simple matter of seeing things how they are and saying such. And frankly, I do think you have your head somewhere else most of the time, particularly when it comes to seeing my name on a post. Some might be more polite and call it red mist.
The truth is that while lame comedy may be your way of conveying some sort of message, I would consider it a waste of energy. There's nothing novel in it, and is as funny as watching a leper pick at his scabs with his teeth.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: In truth I don't think you 'refuted' much as I didn't actually say that much. [...] In any case if I remember correctly your 'refutation' consisted mainly of barbed insults completely unrelated to whatever topic we might have been discussing.
You don't remember 'correctly', actually. Either that or you're being dishonest.
The threads in question may have been a couple of years ago but I'm pretty certain you'd remember the level of detail I went into in my responses to what you were saying - parsing elements of conflation or elision and providing quotes and links to supporting evidence where appropriate. If you're willing to write that all off as 'mainly barbed insults' - when it's probably the closest to serious debate of your views you're ever likely to get - it doesn't seem to me that you're capable of honesty even with yourself.
It would be perfectly possible for me to produce a sample ginormo-post from that period, but I trust those who took the time to trawl through those exchanges probably recall them a little more 'correctly' than you do yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Had it been a matter of my posting simply for the viewing pleasure of fluffy types, the thread would never had become such a talking point; indeed it would have fizzled out pretty quickly.
A 'talking point' is a bit different from an actual debate, though. I mean: you succeeded in stirring up controversy, but was there much in the way of actual debate? Essentially you traded your habitual 'positions' for a heap of cut & paste plus some baffled bagger admissions that they didn't know enough to be able to address your 'arguments' in sufficient detail. I suppose Kovacs made some interesting points but many of them have been aired over here in the past.
This really comes down to the disagreement between myself and him about why you do what you do. Your evident satisfaction with having become a 'talking point' - as opposed to having your views challenged by someone with a good knowledge of the period - supports my explanation rather than his, I think.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The truth is that while lame comedy may be your way of conveying some sort of message, I would consider it a waste of energy. There's nothing novel in it, and is as funny as watching a leper pick at his scabs with his teeth.
Mask's right: there's entertainment value in that image, but it requires serious under-the-hood tinkering to get it there.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: You don't remember 'correctly', actually. Either that or you're being dishonest.
It was a while ago, and I do remember getting involved in a rather circular argument with you that ended in the usual mud-slinging. I am being honest with you when I say that the points I offered covered but a fraction of the topic; I'll admit that I might have been slightly unfair in judging what you may have responded with back then, but I do recall pretty well your complete inability to acknowledge any of the points I offered.
Of course, the logical result was that the debate went nowhere. The balance of power was also rather unfair: there was one of me and many of you, and every source I offered was ignored, denounced as 'anti-Semitic', or met with a set of stock responses I couldn't respond further to satisfactorily on my own. This was of course seen in extremis on the Handbag thread. I am not being critical when I say this, for I would have probably adopted the same tactics. What I would say is that if you are ever up for a challenge one day, you should head onto the Revisionist Forum and ask as many questions as you want. You won't get insulted as this is in violation of the strict rules there, but you'll get some idea of how it feels to be swimming against a rather strong current.
quote:The threads in question may have been a couple of years ago but I'm pretty certain you'd remember the level of detail I went into in my responses to what you were saying - parsing elements of conflation or elision and providing quotes and links to supporting evidence where appropriate.
At the beginning, maybe. It would be intesting to see these old threads in their entirety, of course.
quote:It would be perfectly possible for me to produce a sample ginormo-post from that period, but I trust those who took the time to trawl through those exchanges probably recall them a little more 'correctly' than you do yourself.
I'd rather you produce a ginormo-post, as memory can play very funny tricks on people, and lead them into making the oddest of conclusions by putting a name here and a place there.
quote:A 'talking point' is a bit different from an actual debate, though. I mean: you succeeded in stirring up controversy, but was there much in the way of actual debate?
I'd admit that there was a debate in the early stages, but once the likes of Brown Mouse got themselves involved it was always likely to descend into farce. It was not an attempt to stir up controversy, and never has been. It's up to you if you choose to believe that.
In the end it became a talking point - and yes, a controversy. Accordingly, those with their finger on the pulse couldn't care less what was actually being said and instead chose to wield their authoritative powers on the basis of a few complaints. The very fact that someone (the cutter and paster SueDeNimm, I believe) actually suggested that I had previously insulted 'Brown Mouse' on TMO is pretty solid proof of the fact that people were ever so quick to take two and two and make five. (I am unaware of who this Brown Mouse character actually is, and even less aware of whether or not they might have posted or post on here).
quote:Essentially you traded your habitual 'positions' for a heap of cut & paste plus some baffled bagger admissions that they didn't know enough to be able to address your 'arguments' in sufficient detail. I suppose Kovacs made some interesting points but many of them have been aired over here in the past.
The 'habitual positions' of which you speak are probably the most basic questions that anyone who has read some of the core texts might ask; it would have been appreciated if I had got to see an answer to them. Then we might have got somewhere.
I agree Kovacs did make some interesting points, and the degree of civility and the specific nature of the counterpoints was refreshing. After all the copy and paste bullshit, I did think a proper debate could be had. Alas, it was all cut short before it really got going.
quote:Your evident satisfaction with having become a 'talking point' - as opposed to having your views challenged by someone with a good knowledge of the period - supports my explanation rather than his, I think.
This is all hearsay now of course, for things might have been very different had the thread been allowed to continue and if I had been able to respond to Kovacs' counterpoints. As I said, the thread became more of a talking point - i.e. a controversy - and less of a debate once certain parties started playing the 'anti-Semite' card and complaining to the moderators for no other reason than their feelings were mortally wounded. Or something.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I'll admit that I might have been slightly unfair in judging what you may have responded with back then, but I do recall pretty well your complete inability to acknowledge any of the points I offered.
There's a difference between an 'inability to acknowledge' and an unwillingness on the grounds of your points being wrong. Conceding a point is not a question of courtesy, it is a question of whether or not a person is talking rubbish.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The balance of power was also rather unfair: there was one of me and many of you.
You can't be unaware that your views are maintained by only a cranky minority, given disproportionate exposure only because of their unceasing efforts at self-publicity. For all the sound and fury generated around such crank views, you can't act surprised when your numbers are still pitifully small.
Aside from that, there aren't really that many people on the forum willing to engage in long-running exchanges with you. Quite often I've had people chiding me for giving you the 'oxygen of publicity' by even addressing your posts, the implication being that if I didn't, no one else would bother.
At any rate, the concept of 'unfairness' is pretty ridiculous in this context. If a person's arguments are strong enough, they will stand well above mere weight of numbers of the opposing viewpoint. A forum isn't like being in a room of raised voices - a weak argument is self-evidently a weak argument, just as a strong one is very obviously strong.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: every source I offered was ignored, denounced as 'anti-Semitic', or met with a set of stock responses I couldn't respond further to satisfactorily on my own.
This is nonsense. Much of the 'evidence' you offer comes from respectable sources but has only been quoted partially or completely out of context - or been given disproportionate weight in contrast with other, more compelling evidence. If you 'only' quoted material from revisionist websites (though the fact you rely on them heavily hardly does anything for your credibility) it would be a simple matter to dismiss your act.
You're presenting a caricature of how forites have responded to your posts, but people just aren't that easily taken in.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: What I would say is that if you are ever up for a challenge one day, you should head onto the Revisionist Forum and ask as many questions as you want. You won't get insulted as this is in violation of the strict rules there, but you'll get some idea of how it feels to be swimming against a rather strong current.
Why would I waste my time arguing with people who have decided upon their outlook and crowbar all evidence they come across to fit in with that outlook. A repellent outlook at that, it has to be said.
As I've said before, I don't even think that you really believe in half of that crap - it's just a corner you've now painted yourself into that would require, should you ever step out of it, an admission that you've pissed ten years of your life up a dead end.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: At the beginning, maybe. It would be intesting to see these old threads in their entirety, of course.
I'm fine with that too: they generally show an excess of restraint in addressing a series of feints, wriggles and shifts in position that never announce themselves as such ('At the beginning, maybe' indeed).
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I'd rather you produce a ginormo-post, as memory can play very funny tricks on people, and lead them into making the oddest of conclusions by putting a name here and a place there.
You see: that sort of statement thinks it's clever, thinks it's made some sort of insinuation without having to go to the trouble of providing anything so burdensome as 'proof'. In actual fact, it's rather desperate and stupid. If you have something to say, say it explicitly and with evidence; gnomic utterances further undermine your credibility.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: In the end it became a talking point - and yes, a controversy. Accordingly, those with their finger on the pulse couldn't care less what was actually being said and instead chose to wield their authoritative powers on the basis of a few complaints. The very fact that someone (the cutter and paster SueDeNimm, I believe) actually suggested that I had previously insulted 'Brown Mouse' on TMO is pretty solid proof of the fact that people were ever so quick to take two and two and make five.
You express offensive views in frequently offensive terms, to play the stunned old maid when people take offence and jump to not-unreasonable conclusions (ie. even supposedly 'respectable' Holocaust Deniers like David Irving are blatant Jew-hating cranks) is a bit feeble, really.
I don't even know why you're going through this charade here - a board upon which you've expressed yourself in baldly anti-semitic terms, even if the people on Handbag jumped to the same (as it happens, accurate) conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The 'habitual positions' of which you speak are probably the most basic questions that anyone who has read some of the core texts might ask; it would have been appreciated if I had got to see an answer to them. Then we might have got somewhere.
'Habitual positions' = complaining about the common currency of the 'Jews into soap' rumour when the only people who ever mention this are Holocaust deniers themselves; complaining about the 'ubiquity' of programmes and stories about the Final Solution when you delve into websites chock full of them (eg Irving's) on what's probably a daily basis; whining about the "ill treatment" of trained killers of the SS and being haughtily dismissive of the suffering of anyone else; telling outright lies about volume, diversity and richness of historical evidence and study from/of the period.
You've pulled all the same stunts in the past three or four years numerous times on tmo/seethru. To jolt into the same routine on a completely different website - on a thread about Prince Harry, ffs - can neutrally be described as 'habitual'. There are lots of more derogatory, though not necessarily less accurate, terms.
I REMEMBER THE LONG EXCHANGES from seethru/tmo 1.1 and i remember how this goes, each of you quoting back smaller and smaller sections of text. ben trying to nail jelly to the wall and rick sliding around like a shit in a bottle.
Posts: 999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: There's a difference between an 'inability to acknowledge' and an unwillingness on the grounds of your points being wrong. Conceding a point is not a question of courtesy, it is a question of whether or not a person is talking rubbish.
An easy get-out, this.
quote:You can't be unaware that your views are maintained by only a cranky minority, given disproportionate exposure only because of their unceasing efforts at self-publicity. For all the sound and fury generated around such crank views, you can't act surprised when your numbers are still pitifully small.
It should be noted that the 'sound and fury' is generated not because one might be wrong, but that one is offending certain sensibilities - an observation Kovacs actually made on the Handbag thread.
quote:At any rate, the concept of 'unfairness' is pretty ridiculous in this context. If a person's arguments are strong enough, they will stand well above mere weight of numbers of the opposing viewpoint. A forum isn't like being in a room of raised voices - a weak argument is self-evidently a weak argument, just as a strong one is very obviously strong.
I cannot disagree with this statement in itself, but the Holocaust is a completely different animal. Even highlighting the most obvious mathematical errors and glaring contradictions generate feelings that transcend traditional forms of discussion and debate. Look at the reasons I got banned on Handbag; it had nothing to do with whether my argument was weak or strong, but plenty to do with the fact that many found the need to complain because it hurt their feelings.
quote:This is nonsense. Much of the 'evidence' you offer comes from respectable sources but has only been quoted partially or completely out of context - or been given disproportionate weight in contrast with other, more compelling evidence.
I could say the same about many 'establishment' interpretations. It is perfectly reasonable for those working within the accepted boundaries to interpret the documents any way they please, but it is somehow a crime for anyone to consider an interpretation that might fall outside this rubric. The plans concerning the building of the Auschwitz Krema and their sometime 'conversion' into homicidal gas chambers is a case in point.
quote:Why would I waste my time arguing with people who have decided upon their outlook and crowbar all evidence they come across to fit in with that outlook. A repellent outlook at that, it has to be said.
Yes, why would you?
quote:As I've said before, I don't even think that you really believe in half of that crap - it's just a corner you've now painted yourself into that would require, should you ever step out of it, an admission that you've pissed ten years of your life up a dead end.
But what is 'that crap'? You know next to nothing about what I think on the matter as I have for the most part stuck to the basic questions. There are plenty of things written by revisionists that I happen to disagree with, but we never quite got around to discussing such trifles.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I'm fine with that too: they generally show an excess of restraint in addressing a series of feints, wriggles and shifts in position that never announce themselves as such ('At the beginning, maybe' indeed).
Let's see them, then. Or a link to them. If only for interest's sake.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: You see: that sort of statement thinks it's clever, thinks it's made some sort of insinuation without having to go to the trouble of providing anything so burdensome as 'proof'. In actual fact, it's rather desperate and stupid. If you have something to say, say it explicitly and with evidence; gnomic utterances further undermine your credibility.
It was not meant to be vague; I simply led myself to understand that you had read the Handbag thread, and might have noticed the vivid 'memories' of some of the participants. Among the whoppers to be found were:
- I knew Brown Mouse from TMO. - I knew that she/he was Jewish and was therefore being doubly mean (and, naturally, 'anti-semitic') when I made (snide, admittedly) reference to her/his username. - I had been banned from TMO.
I found the last 'memory' particularly hilarious; even you would balked at that one.
quote:You express offensive views in frequently offensive terms, to play the stunned old maid when people take offence and jump to not-unreasonable conclusions...
I think most of those who contributed to the thread in question qould agree that I never said anything that could be construed as blatantly offensive; the fact that they used my (in hindsight rather feeble) joke about Brown Mouse's username as a pretext to ban me says much about the entire story.
quote:'Habitual positions' = complaining about the common currency of the 'Jews into soap' rumour when the only people who ever mention this are Holocaust deniers themselves;
One of the Handbaggers mentioned this first, which provided some sort of evidence that the story is still floating around. I simply felt compelled to say something about it.
quote:...complaining about the 'ubiquity' of programmes and stories about the Final Solution when you delve into websites chock full of them (eg Irving's) on what's probably a daily basis
Would you not say that all of the browbeating surrounding January 27th was rather ubiquitous?
quote:...whining about the "ill treatment" of trained killers of the SS and being haughtily dismissive of the suffering of anyone else
Here we go again. 'Trained killers of the SS'. What is this supposed to mean? You make it sound as if I am responsible for eulogising the likes of concentration camp guards, when my focus has always been entirely on those who fought in combat. The soldiers of the Waffen-SS were trained killers, yes; they were soldiers. The same description could be applied to any soldier in any professional fighting force.
As for my being dismissive of others' suffering, I have never done that - at least not deliberately. However if I feel that something needs to be questioned I will do just that. History is about establishing the truth, not skirting around it simply because someone might get a little upset.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: Like a Dutch Mouse but with - you know - excrement.
Given that we all now know that Brown Mouse is Jewish (well, according to some at least) the above statement could well be interpreted as 'anti-semitic'.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
I admire you for opening with such a short yet bold word. Not quite as short or bold as "a" would have been, but considering your following word, I'd have to credit you with making a pretty good decision here.
quote: easy
I can't understand how you might have been misguided enough to think that using the word "easy" was going to win an argument with me, Rick. This just isn't good enough and I don't see the point in crediting it with any further response.
quote: get-out,
I like your use of hyphenation here, but I'm not entirely sure that it fits with the general tone of the sentence. Perhaps you'll take the time to think a bit harder before posting like this in future?
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: An easy get-out, this.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Yes, why would you?
While an established part of your repertoire, this type of one-line response is completely inadequate as a contribution. On the one hand, they atomise the discussion so any third party will struggle to follow what's going on - on the other, they are often so gnomic as to be practically meaningless.
I mean: 'Yes, why would you?' - exactly what tone of voice is that said in? Wry, bitter, scornful, triumphant or regretful? The register of your posts tends to swing wildly between enraged and wounded - nuance really isn't your strong point. That being the case, please respond properly or not at all. I made a fairly reasonable point about the pointlessness of going through the pantomime of 'arguing' with bigots only interested in what reinforces their existing positions - you respond with a (sarcastic? disappointed? leering?) echo.
Similarly, the comment I made in the post above about why I don't 'acknowledge' that you 'may have some points' - namely, that I find your entire approach so warped that 'reasonable points' tend only to be thrown in to try and make the 'unreasonable' (ie. wrong) ones somehow more valid or believable - is both internally consistent and has been reflected in my approach to dealing with your claims. Simply to squawk 'an easy get-out, this' without troubling yourself to explain why it's an untenable position is laziness or arrogance on your part. Laziness - because you can't be bothered to argue your case properly; arrogance, because you seem to think the sheer force or sparkle of your rhetoric will carry you through.
The ease with which Misc and others send up your 'one-line-quote-one-line-response' antistyle indicates that you are wholly deficient in the force and sparkle stakes.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: It should be noted that the 'sound and fury' is generated not because one might be wrong, but that one is offending certain sensibilities - an observation Kovacs actually made on the Handbag thread.
It's not the case of 'either or' - it's the case you're both wrong and offensive. The above implies that you consider the offence you cause almost as a kind of validation of your position - which I suppose is pretty handy if your position is weak.
This underlines the point I made about how Holocaust deniers busy themselves with creating a stir (offering $10,000 'prizes' for 'incontrovertible proof' and similar stunts) as a means of attracting unwarranted attention to their efforts - and it seems that such upset is perfectly acceptable to them, given that any sort of mainstream acceptance is likely to remain elusive.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I cannot disagree with this statement in itself, but the Holocaust is a completely different animal. Even highlighting the most obvious mathematical errors and glaring contradictions generate feelings that transcend traditional forms of discussion and debate.
In fairness, you're shifting your ground again. Your initial complaint was that, on the tmo threads, you were 'one against many'. Now you're saying the problem was the nature of the feelings 'generated' on Handbag. Changing your horse halfway through an exchange is deceitful and confusing - and makes you look like you yourself have become confused by what you're going on about. This occurs again, below.
As an aside, your complaint about 'mathematical errors' and 'contradictions' is made against the same old set of things you pull out again and again and again. You seem incapable of engaging with recent, scholarly research and circle round and around a handful of texts or celebrities that hardly constitute the current field of historical study - a rich, varied field with lively debates.
You of course will dismiss all that out of hand (perish the thought of you breaking into a sweat by reading or engaging with something published anytime recently) but I'd direct the couple of people still reading this thread to: Christopher Browning or Michael Burleigh for compelling syntheses of where research currently stands so far as, respectively, the Final Solution and the Nazi period in general are concerned.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I could say the same about many 'establishment' interpretations. It is perfectly reasonable for those working within the accepted boundaries to interpret the documents any way they please, but it is somehow a crime for anyone to consider an interpretation that might fall outside this rubric.
Interesting that you make no attempt to deny the accusation of distortion or suppression made against yourself and other deniers. Stack this beside your admission that you would adopt tactics of ignoring, denouncing or drowning out an opponent...
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: every source I offered was ignored, denounced as 'anti-Semitic', or met with a set of stock responses I couldn't respond further to satisfactorily on my own. This was of course seen in extremis on the Handbag thread. I am not being critical when I say this, for I would have probably adopted the same tactics.
...and your commitment to anything approaching a serious debate, conducted with a degree of integrity on either side, pretty much disappears in a puff of smoke. Any tactic, so long as you 'win' right?
Also: your claims that 'only a fraction' of 'the matter' has been discussed over the past four years smack of desperation. To hint, this far into the exchange, that you have a mass of other compelling material stashed away somewhere rings pretty hollow when you keep on trotting out the same stuff as ever ("Wiesenthal ...Wilkomerski... soap etc etc etc") - and it was pretty stale the first time around.
Also (2): the "You don't know me! You don't know anything about me!" retort is one of the most basic and feeble gambits in the discussion forum armoury. Having waded through tens of thousands of your words, looked at your internet sites and observed how you interact - or not - with others over a period of years, I think I have a reasonable handle on who you are and what drives you. Maybe you have as good an understanding of me, though the arid nature of your retorts ("Head up arse... Benny Boy... Benfest" etc etc) don't provide much evidence of this.
I won't say I yield to no one in my diagnosis of your pathology - in fact, I yield pretty willingly to Dr Benway, who infuses his analyses with a patience and mercy that, in your case, I'm quite beyond.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: It was not meant to be vague; I simply led myself to understand that you had read the Handbag thread, and might have noticed the vivid 'memories' of some of the participants. Among the whoppers to be found were:
- I knew Brown Mouse from TMO. - I knew that she/he was Jewish and was therefore being doubly mean (and, naturally, 'anti-semitic') when I made (snide, admittedly) reference to her/his username. - I had been banned from TMO.
I found the last 'memory' particularly hilarious; even you would balked at that one.
Careful now. Your own memory is playing tricks on you. Your original jibe was referring to the discussions on tmo from several years ago - I complained that that jibe was gnomic and made a bunch of unsupported insinuations - you now "respond" to that complaint by pretending that you were going on about last week's Handbag thread all along. Are you trying to confuse, or are you yourself confused?
Let's have a look at that 'memory' jibe again:
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I'd rather you produce a ginormo-post, as memory can play very funny tricks on people, and lead them into making the oddest of conclusions by putting a name here and a place there.
This is clearly referring to the tmo exchange and yet, above, you draw on Handbag to support your position - a thread to which I didn't even contribute.
If this is an example of your scrupulous, sceptical 'approach', I think people can draw their own conclusions about the worth of what it might yield when applied to historical events rather that online exchanges.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: One of the Handbaggers mentioned this [Jews into soap rumour] first, which provided some sort of evidence that the story is still floating around. I simply felt compelled to say something about it.
Strictly speaking, SueDeNimm made a vague comment about the Nazis 'making use' of Jewish bodies - it was you that cawwed triumphantly about this being evidence that the 'Jewish soap' story continuing to endure. Your repeated references would, I guess, contribute a lot more to ensuring any sort of afterlife for the story than a vague mention that doesn't even use the word 'soap'
I doubt anyone either on Handbag or on tmo had even heard about lurid, untrue stories about electrocution or boiling as methods of mass slaughter until you (repeatedly) brought them up.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Would you not say that all of the browbeating surrounding January 27th was rather ubiquitous?
If you consider a couple of weeks of media coverage 'browbeating', well gosh, you must be a sensitive soul. I fear for your sanity in the face of the impending Charles/Camilla-fest.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Here we go again. 'Trained killers of the SS'. What is this supposed to mean? You make it sound as if I am responsible for eulogising the likes of concentration camp guards, when my focus has always been entirely on those who fought in combat. The soldiers of the Waffen-SS were trained killers, yes; they were soldiers. The same description could be applied to any soldier in any professional fighting force.
Not many 'professional fighting forces' have fought to impose the will of such a murderous and noxious regime over so many other peoples. Few 'professional fighting forces' have been so involved in a self-styled 'war of annihilation' and provided direct and indirect support for a programme of continent-wide racial slaughter.
The disgusting piece of propaganda masquerading as a 'reappraisal' on your adulatory Waffen-SS website demonstrates your blindness to 'mathematical errors' and 'glaring contradictions' when it suits you. Describing the mass execution of as Jewish civilians as 'antipartisan actions' and 'executing Communist agitators and bandits' is grotesque and insupportable. Not only does copious evidence exist of the activities of these killing squads, but the figures eagerly reported back to Berlin mitigate wholly against 'partisans' being the victims - as we have seen in Iraq, 'partisans' are rarely apprehended by the thousand... they're hardly ever apprehended by the dozen. What those 'tarnished warriors' were doing was butchering entire villages.
For you to adopt the code language ('antipartisan activities') the Nazis themselves used indicates the degree of reliability that can be expected from your 'studies'.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: History is about establishing the truth, not skirting around it simply because someone might get a little upset.
As indicated above, 'skirting round' the truth is the one thing to which you are wholly devoted.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: The ease with which Misc and others send up your 'one-line-quote-one-line-response' antistyle indicates that you are wholly deficient in the force and sparkle stakes.
Actually, the send-up wasn't targeted solely at Rick.
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: Actually, the send-up wasn't targeted solely at Rick.
Fair enough. *shrug* I do make an effort to keep my posts - and hopefully the exchange as a whole - comprehensible to others on the forum, rather than descending into obscure, unglossed references, foreign terms or asides intended to signal 'expertise'.
Maybe I'm kidding myself. Maybe no one else gives a fuck.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: Actually, the send-up wasn't targeted solely at Rick.
Maybe no one else gives a fuck.
Don't know how much you would appreciate a reply from me - but...
I think we give a fuck. But I don't think we think it will change snorton's viewpoint.
As for the rest of it and what we think; we already know what we think of his views. I think we already agree, by and large, with you.
Posts: 134
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dervish: As for the rest of it and what we think; we already know what we think of his views. I think we already agree, by and large, with you.
The argument seems pointless because Rick isn't going to let you change his mind, or (obviously) vice versa.
posted
Would we want snorton to change our minds? Do we share the same antipathy towards ben's views?
Perhaps I shouldn't speak for everyone but if you drew a line between the two, I know which side of that line I would stand on.
Posts: 134
| IP: Logged
posted
wow ben, he's made yo go from defender of the realm to self doubting knight.
"am i right?" "does nobody else give a fuck?"
you're the only one willing to engage and attempt to show what a proper arguement is. the rest of us chimps point and fling shit like we're looking at a snake. i'm saying, that as unappetizing to observe the shit flinging chimp impressions, its the best way to respond. you can show your side of the arguement, provide links, all those good aspects of discussion on discussion forums. but. all thats going to happen is an interaction with a sub par turing maching.
anyway. he's not going to change my mind, you're not going to change his. i'm not going to suddenly wake up one morning and think "you know, the waffen ss got a bum deal. i'm going to read some sven hassel as a starting point and then stab a jew"
nor is norton going to wake up and say "all this, all this defence of the nazis and hatred of jews and blackes its all wrong. why look at me. i'm browne myself. why couldn't i see that i would be thrown in the chambers had i been around my beloved hitler. no wonder nobody liked me when essentially i was projecting self loathing and anger"
posted
Thing is, I haven't been responding to Rick in order to change his mind - as you and Misc say, that would be a waste of time. He's aware of most of the facts but has chosen to set his mind against them in order to construct a 'parallel world' version of history.
The point, I suppose, of my posts is to try and show how he's done this and what the implications are of such a pattern of distortion.
Perhaps I really oughtn't to bother myself about such things but Rick's standard pose - here or on Handbag - is to set himself up as some sort of 'expert', dispensing impromptu 'history lessons' and spiking posts on even the most vaguely connected subjects with comments relating to his hobby-horse.
Maybe seasoned hands are used to his schtick and just scroll past it, I just worry that people encountering his act for the first time might be dazzled by the apparent mastery of 'facts' and get hooked in, or at least be left with the vague feeling that 'maybe he has a point - there are always two sides to every story'.
Shit-flinging, while perfectly understandable, simply slides off Rick and - if anything - adds to his personal myth that he's some sort of hyperintelligent maverick surrounded on all sides by hordes of 'the traditional enemy'. Dragging his views out into the light and exposing them as the hybrid of plagiarism, distortion and propaganda that they are is surely likely to cause this self-proclaimed 'historian' much more distress. Even if it's unlikely to lead to an improvement in his behaviour.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
posted
It's true that long-standing tmo posters scroll past most of it and like me feel exasperated that it keeps coming around. It is a bit reptitive to say the least. But maybe in the context of the 42% increase in attacks on Jews in the UK last year, it doesn't hurt too much to have the logical, as opposed to visceral arguments against snorton's stance repeated, even though it is unlikely than any tmo posters would actually agree with him.
Posts: 134
| IP: Logged
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic