...what scholarly pursuits holocaustresearchproject.org was up to, click here (or see this screenshot in case they have already changed it).
That, and the "re-establishment" of the old ARC site. The true site is, of course, available only here.
It will suffice to say that H.E.A.R.T.'s "ARC" still contains the fake materials (click here for more details).
This is exactly what I've been writing about all this time. They don't care about authenticity at all.
Chris Webb and Carmelo Lisciotto are not smart people, that much should be obvious by now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I can't speak on all of the negative claims by Mr. Romanov but I for one am just glad to see the ARC website backonline with the orginal owners and at the URL where it belongs. Not some knock off copy with with a hyphen.
"I can't speak on all of the negative claims by Mr. Romanov"
Mr. Rick, the claims are true.
"but I for one am just glad to see the ARC website backonline with the orginal owners"
Sergey, Nick, and Roberto were all former ARC members, but the idiotic webmasters booted them out for no good reason.
"Not some knock off copy with with a hyphen."
The "knock-off copy" is more reliable than the "original" ARC website.
BTW, the "original owners" are so damn gullible that they swallowed the shite from "Andy Schmidt".
I'm sure Webb and Lisciotto will be viewed as completely reliable and intelligent amongst Holocaust scholars and Historians.
"Sergey, Nick, and Roberto were all former ARC members, but the idiotic webmasters booted them out for no good reason."
Actually, the webmaster is a good guy. And nobody got "booted out". Failed attempt (gee, what losers) doesn't count! ;-)
Also, judging from "Rick"'s "blog", I think it is quite obvious just who we're dealing with here. Hi, Carmie! ;-)
Sergey,
I was browsing an article on Wikipedia, and saw that the "old" site was still in the extenal links (hyphenless). I figured it was a boo boo, and checked on the revision history. To my surprise, it was switched over recently.
I'm troubled that the site may have unverified materials in it. It _was_ an excellent resource, but this recent power struggle definately calls the site's reputation into question.
I've dropped a note to a more experienced editor at Wikipedia, but thought I'd let you know as well.
Post a Comment