From time to time you put links in your comments. On the surface they appear as attempts to illustrate some ill-explained point. When I visit your links and click around inside the sites you pick I find that they host the protocols of the elders of zion and other such materials? Is that a coincidence? Do you inadvertently keep picking such sites at random and then accidentally give the impression that you support their content? I don't have the illusion I'm the first who noticed. Do you?
There are many members here who have been registered for years. When I go back and check older threads I see that they once commented on Holocaust denial related topics. You post the same material over and over again. It failed to convince and often brings no more than heckles. The vast majority of those who once commented didn't even bother with this thread. Why do you? For whose benefit?
Why don't you respond when asked to explain your choice of websites? Why don't you respond when asked if you agree with the materials the websites' creators advocate? Would it not be better to distance yourself from such material if it were indeed an unfortunate clumsiness in selecting references on your part?
You were asked specifically by several people why you picked a particular site when you posted a photo related to Dachau. Why didn't you link to the site of the Dachau memorial where the photo is placed in the context of the story you ostensibly wanted to bring to our attention? It is one of the centerpieces of an ongoing
exhibition designed specifically to bring that aspect of camp life in the closing days of the 12 year reich to our attention. Why didn't you direct people to [Photograph #17017] at the website of the USHHM where it is once again placed in historical context? Given that both these sites provide considerably more background information on the specific story of each of these few pregnant women who gave birth and survived -that is completely lacking at the site you picked- would that not have worked better if your intention had indeed been to explore the circumstances surrounding the birth of their babies in that "Kaufering" sub-camp of Dachau?
You'll have to explain your objections more clearly because to me at least they aren't as obvious as you like to pretend them to be.
If you had written in a comment what that site you picked hosts, your comment would have been split to Aah. Are you skirting the JREF rules but nevertheless sympathetic to the anti-semitc sentiments expressed or is it all a misunderstanding of what you try to say here? If not a misunderstanding, there is good reason why you are informed what the consequences would be for stating such things combined with your repeated claims of others lying.
Back to the timeline you've been asked to provide several times. Put a date on it and indicate what if any influence Holocaust deniers had on each of the following:
Photographers take pictures of the Kaufering born babies. Is such a photographer part of the old Holocaust or the new?
Publication of a book like: "Mothers, Sisters, Resisters: Oral Histories of Women Who Survived the Holocaust (Judaic Studies Series) by Brana Grunewitch. The photo is used in the book. Does that publication fit the old or the new Holocaust narrative?
USHMM uploading that photograph to their image database and providing captions which identify a.o. when and where the photograph was taken - is that old or new Holocaust?
USHMM uploading photos of the women and children later in life from a.o. things the private collections of these women.
Ongoing Exhibition at Dachau including that photograph - same question - old or new Holocaust?
Don't play word games. These examples show that many people don't see the obstacles you claim are obvious. If you were able to explain what you see in more detail and without resorting to linking to websites with dubious -and indeed often outrageously anti-semitic- content you might find a more receptive audience here. To a lot of people it has become obvious that you can't do it. In fact, many of your critics have come to the conclusion years ago that "you" don't want to do it. Distancing yourselves from such material would take the point out of the exercise in futility for you, wouldn't it? In many cases the protests sound pretty hollow but you don't even try very hard.
See for example the link Wroclaw posted above exposing the "Kristallnacht" treatment by old and new nazis. Put that on your timeline as well. Exposed in 1938 & 2007. Unchanged in 2011. Does it fit? If not, why not?
