My point is that now you write that Jews were not massacred, you earlier wrote that they were shot en masse but deserved it. Which leads to this second point: you are making stuff up because you don't know what you're talking about.
Even though Gringuaz believed his bewildering massacres,
What on earth does this mean?
his statement that I quote is holohoax gold....
It is actually pretty run of the mill; like many other scholars, he cautions about memoirs and urges the use of social science methods. He uses those methods to draw conclusions about the daily life in ghettos - and also about the annihilation of the Jews. Your use of the quotation and need to keep repeating it, in this light, is rather silly given your aims.
He exposed the Jews for their exaggerations and ability to blow up small issues to larger ones. His quote is an embarrassment to all you holohoaxters even in context..anytime you have a witness telling their story member Gringuaz quote...what an embarrassment again for you hoaxers.
Again, you forget all the other evidence about the same events. That aside, someone else remarked on your reading comprehension. You keep missing the main idea. Like here: Gringauz did not expose Jews as anything special or different; rather he wrote about how those subjected to "a policy of persecution, defamation and annihilation" underwent deeply felt personal experiences: "Never before was an event so deeply sensed by its participants as being part of an epoch-shaping history in the making, never before was a personal experience felt to be so historically relevant. The result of this hyperhistorical complex has been that the brief post-war years have seen a flood of 'historical materials.' . . ."
With this in mind, Gringauz cautions that such materials cannot substitute for scholarly study using proper methodologies - that people affected so personally have a great deal to contribute to understanding the history but that on account of "the aspect of personal experience" they are not best suited to be the historians of the times: "The question
thus arises whether participants of such a world-shaking epoch can at all be its historians and whether the time has already come when valid historic judgment, free of partisanship, vindictiveness and ulterior motives, is possible. In our opinion survivors of the great catastrophe can make an important contribution to the exploration of the problem. . . . We are further of the opinion that the most satisfactory basis for sound research in these problems is to be found in the co-operation of scientists who have had personal experience with scientists who have not, as exemplified in the present conference. We believe, finally, that although the time for final judgment may not yet have arrived, the establishment of methodical directives for research are immediate urgent tasks."
This, sad to say, has exactly zero to do with your cartoon-version of what Gringauz was writing about.
For all I care you should keep spamming the quotation - it only discredits revisionism and its proponents.
