General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[SnakeTongue]

Really? Faurisson isn't an historian; his advanced degree is in French literature.

So why he is referenced as revisionist historian?

 

[LemmyCaution]

So why he is referenced as revisionist historian?

By whom?

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson he is referenced as a Holocaust denier.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I have to wonder if the extremely hierarchical Soviet military, and the lack of a truly common language, were also factors. Without an officer corps they would be less capable of organized activity than, say, captured Allies might.

All the evidence I know of shows deliberate Nazi mistreatment of POWs - including less than subsistence level rations as policy, weeding out of certain categories of prisoners by shooting, withholding of medical care for injured POWs, etc. I am not sure how language differences and the state of the officer corps enters into this: interestingly, at Sobibor it was Red Army Lieutenant (IIRC) Sasha Pechersky, a Russian Jew brought to the death camp from Minsk, who led and organized the inmate rebellion in 1943.

 

[SnakeTongue]

On the contrary, you use lots of logical fallacies.

Ah... ANTPogo do not miss one single chance spell out her bitterness.

A less pretentious, honest answer, then, would have been: "There was no conviction of anyone for this act at Nuremberg." Right?

Yes, it would be.

By whom?

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson he is referenced as a Holocaust denier.

By other Internet pages rather than Wikipedia.

 

[FluffyPersian]

You confused my preference to use Latin to express small sentences with logical fallacies coined in Latin.

How is pointing out that none of the Nuremberg judgments mention Katyn an "appeal to shared belief," whatever that may be? It's a direct answer to Clayton's evidence free assertion that the Germans were held responsible for Katyn.

And if "Appellare ad participatur opinio" is not a logical fallacy, why is it relevant to this discussion?

 

[A'isha]

Ah... ANTPogo do not miss one single chance spell out her bitterness.

Who's bitter?

I'm merely unsurprised that you (yet again) apparently refuse to read actual scholarly works by actual historians, and instead simply cut-and-paste stuff from denier websites.

I mean, Faurisson? Really?!

EDIT: Even David Irving has better credentials than Faurisson, and he was legally judged to be a lying Nazi hack in his own libel lawsuit!

 

[Wroclaw]

By other Internet pages rather than Wikipedia.

Well, gee, I can call myself whatever I want to but it doesn't make it true.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Who's bitter?

Yours...

I'm merely unsurprised that you (yet again) apparently refuse to read actual scholarly works by actual historians, and instead simply cut-and-paste stuff from denier websites.

Yaacov Lozowick is a historian?

J.-C. Pressac is a historian?

I mean, Faurisson? Really?!

Yes.

EDIT: Even David Irving has better credentials than Faurisson, and he was legally judged to be a lying Nazi hack in his own libel lawsuit!

So?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Well, gee, I can call myself whatever I want to but it doesn't make it true.

Did Robert Faurisson called himlself a historian?

I find reasonable ground for doubt to assent with your premise.

 

[A'isha]

Yaacov Lozowick is a historian?

Yes. He, like me (and unlike Faurisson) has a degree in history. He also was the head of the Yad Vashem archives for a decade and a half.

More importantly, he has published several scholarly historical works, both books and journal articles.

J.-C. Pressac is a historian?

Yes. Although he doesn't have a history degree, his main work is meticulously researched and exhaustively cited, the result of intensive research into multiple primary sources. Which is far, far more than Faurisson has ever done.

So?

So it seems your insistence on primary sources (or citations to such) is not quite as ironclad a rule as you would have us believe, as long as you're referring to the writings of a fellow denier posted on a blog.

Which is why no one takes you any more seriously in these threads than they take Clayton Moore and Dogzilla. Not after the fiasco regarding your "analysis" of the Rauff letter, at least.

Which reminds me...have you thought about bringing your documentary "expertise" to this thread, by any chance?

 

[ddt]

Appellare ad participatur opinio.

Oh, and by the way, your Latin is simply not used anywhere.

No wonder, as it's simply ungrammatical. Let's analyze that "sentence":

appellare: infinitive active voice, present tense of appello = to appeal, to call.
ad: preposition, "to", with its complement (a noun or nominal verb form) always in the accusative case.
participatur: indicative, third person singular, passive voice, present tense of participo = to share; so this form means "s/he is shared"
opinio: nominative singular of opinio, -onis = "opinion" (the accusative would be opinionem)

So this string of four words is plain gibberish. It conforms as little to the syntax of Latin as Snakey's earlier mathematical formulae conformed to their syntax.

The icing of the cake is, of course, that Snakey's native tongue is a Romance language, descended from Latin, which still shares a lot of the inflection.

 

[TSR]

So?

So, you tried to handwave away what was actually said, by using a made up phrase in a language not in common use on this board or by any of its members -- and ended up getting forced to agree that the four of us you quoted were correct and CM incorrect in zir citation of Katyn as an example of a witness lying at the war trials.

This, despite your stated but easily disproved goal of "provid<ing> the readers with reliable references regarding the subject discussed" since no one was discussing your ability to use Google Translate to incorrectly characterize your correspondents' comments.

You post in opposition to those whom you finally admitted were correct, and yet *still* have not reproached CM for zir original lie about Katyn.

You have lost any credibility you may have had to pretend to be neutral on this matter -- as if your choice of source material and distortion even of that hadn't made your *real* intention abundantly clear.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Yes. He, like me (and unlike Faurisson) has a degree in history. He also was the head of the Yad Vashem archives for a decade and a half.

More importantly, he has published several scholarly historical works, both books and journal articles.

Fair enough.

Yes. Although he doesn't have a history degree, his main work is meticulously researched and exhaustively cited, the result of intensive research into multiple primary sources. Which is far, far more than Faurisson has ever done.

So why you suggested to me read works of historians as the only source for appropriate information about the subject discussed?

If J.-C. Pressac is not a historian as Robert Faurisson, why did you cited him in previous posts?

So it seems your insistence on primary sources (or citations to such) is not quite as ironclad a rule as you would have us believe, as long as you're referring to the writings of a fellow denier posted on a blog.

Which is why no one takes you any more seriously in these threads than they take Clayton Moore and Dogzilla. Not after the fiasco regarding your "analysis" of the Rauff letter, at least.

Which reminds me...have you thought about bringing your documentary "expertise" to this thread, by any chance?

Oh! The moderate thread! Yes!

I am glad observing how you and other users are silent craving for a "denier" appear on the thread.

Without a "denier" that thread is going to fade away...

 

[SnakeTongue]

So this string of four words is plain gibberish. It conforms as little to the syntax of Latin as Snakey's earlier mathematical formulae conformed to their syntax.

The icing of the cake is, of course, that Snakey's native tongue is a Romance language, descended from Latin, which still shares a lot of the inflection.

Which is the correct sentence?

 

[TSR]

Which is the correct sentence?

That would be: "I, SnakeTongue, unreservedly condemn CM's use of lies like zir claim about Katyn in the service of what zie calls the truth, but is actually merely an expression of zir hate, and apologize for my implication that those I quoted were wrong about the matter".

You're welcome.

 

[SnakeTongue]

You post in opposition to those whom you finally admitted were correct, and yet *still* have not reproached CM for zir original lie about Katyn.

Why should I do?

You have lost any credibility you may have had to pretend to be neutral on this matter -- as if your choice of source material and distortion even of that hadn't made your *real* intention abundantly clear.

What compels you to believe that I am concerned with "credibility"?

 

[SnakeTongue]

That would be: "I, SnakeTongue, unreservedly condemn CM's use of lies like zir claim about Katyn in the service of what zie calls the truth, but is actually merely an expression of zir hate, and apologize for my implication that those I quoted were wrong about the matter".

You're welcome.

I am sorry, but your petulance is hilarious.

 

[TSR]

Why should I do?

To maintain just a bit longer the "selfless crusader for truth on behalf of our readers" schtick?

What compels you to believe that I am concerned with "credibility"?

Nothing "compels" me -- it is a default assumption that a poster does not want to be too terribly obvious in their dishonesty, so as to spread that dishonesty further.

If your credibility is of no concern to you, why are you even here?

 

[TSR]

I am sorry, but your petulance is hilarious.

No petulance, just the honest truth.

Maybe you should look the concept up, since you seem to be less than familiar with it.

 

[ddt]

Which is the correct sentence?

That's the wrong question. The moral of the story is that you shouldn't just run "appeal to shared belief" through Google Translate, or string together a list of mathematical symbols without any knowledge of the target domain. You may think it sounds impressive, but someone is going to call you on it and expose your ignorance. In fact, you may extend this argument to the main topic of this thread.