So we can't respond to anything somebody on your team says without verifying that what they insist is the truth about the holocaust or that their interpretation of what they believe is the truth about the holocaust is indeed what the mainstream historians say is the truth? We should just assume that you people are quite possibly spouting out rubbish and that we need to fact check your argument first?
And if we actually try to check your facts before we respond, we can't rely on any of the most respected historians in the field or any book they've written if it more than a few years old because there's a pretty good chance that the information is out of date.
What I think would be easier is for you guys to get your facts straight--especially when only a Joo hater doesn't take everything you say at face value.
Does anybody wonder why I want to establish some basic parameters first?
Because, for one thing, there isn't a team, there are individuals responding as individuals. Because, for another, people have varying degrees of knowledge about particular topics. Because, of course, anyone can make an error on this or that point (and errors should be cleared up, no matter who makes them). Because, finally, no, you can't rely on any single work of a historian, in any field, as the final truth - and if you want to know about something, as opposed to trying to convince yourself that you are scoring points in a game of teams, you have to actually put in some effort of your own. Sorry, but that is how life, including this topic, works.
Taking the case in point, those who introduced the error I had in mind actually included two brave revisionists. You first steered the discussion toward the madeup notion that Pesye Schloss played dead:
And what kind of a master thespian is able to take a bullet through the foot without flinching?
You were hoping no one had read the actuall text because it makes clear that there was no acting involved and that Pesye Schloss most likely passed out from the second bullet. Anyone who picked your nonsense up was simply misdirected by your line of thought, perhaps having given you too much credence, I don't know for sure. Another point that got picked up and repeated in the discussion was Clayton Moore's lying rewrite that a "guard" of some sort shot Pesye Schloss. Other errors also came from non-revisionists, regarding the role of the SS and language issues to name two. Interested in the history, I did indeed respond to all these misinterpretations. As anyone should.
Now, you can put on a stupid pretend act that you can't be bothered because not everyone posting has the same interpretation of or knowledge about one particular incident - or you can try to focus on the incident itself, what a strong interpretation of it might be, based on the evidence and sources, and what that interpretation says in this instance about pathologically and degenerate lying. In other words, put up, or shut up: Not one of you has been able to answer two simple questions: 1) What was Pesye Schloss lying about? 2) And how do you know she lied? If your answer is that you know because some anonymous poster on JREF got a fact or two bollixed up, or your other bit of mendacity, that a historian's gloss left a mistaken impression, you will essentially be announcing that you are a fool and not to be taken seriously. Go for it.
