There is a discussion forum which, unlike the Cesspit run by Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, offers open, uncensored debate.
It is called RODOH, which stands for "Real Open Debate on the Holocaust" (the pun on the misnamed "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" is intended).
"Bankdraft" is herewith invited to leave the cozy safety of the Führerbunker and join the discussion on RODOH.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
Yeah, kinda funny but it looks more like you and JH having a discussion -- why don't you just call each other?
Let me just ask this? Do you deny that that thread is not laced with personal attacks? There was almost nothing else there.
The entire topic is disingenuous in the first place. My question was why JH didn't answer the perfectly logical question posed by some guy named ngoodgame?
And he didn't, he ignored it 'till I brought it up at CODOH.
Here's ngoodgames question from December 15th, 2007:
Here is my question: Will the contributors here at holocaust controversies join me in condemning these outrageous laws and the governments that enact them?
Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good that they serve.
Thank you very much.
Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:51:00 PM
Note time stamp.
That question went unanswered until December 29th which is when I brought it up at CODOH and then JH started his damage control bit by finally answering the question (sorta):
Hello Cesspit readers! This blog's position regarding laws against denial has been stated on several occasions: we are opposed to such laws. But you and your Cesspit chums such as Wankdraft and Jonnie Hargis would already have known that if you'd been paying attention to previous postings here. A simple search on the search engine would also have made our position clear.
Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:40:00 PM
Note time stamp.
Which prompted me to write this:
JH,
Thank you for that clarification, ‘course ngoodgame is still oblivious to your position. Maybe he'll search the archives to determine it for himself. BTW, I didn't ask the question, NGG did.
I'm just a dumb-ass but had I been you I would have answered something like this:
"Yes NGG, we will join you in such a condemnation. It is indeed unconscionable as we have often stated."
That would actually be a great answer because it would have the added benefit of not addressing the more salient point of his question:
“Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good that they serve.”
[Stop]
If I were JH, I would be embarrassed trying to slide this through ('course I guess no one over there is going to question him).
Anyway, you guys are pretty vulgar and I'm going to decline your invitation, but thanks.
BD
PS
While you make up your mind about my petition proposal and about posting on RODOH, continue enjoying the thread
http://p102.ezboard.com/Wankdraft/frodohforumfrm18.showMessage?topicID=339.topic
Especially the latest comment from "Wahrheitseeker", which you may wish to share with your fellow CODOH posters.
>>That’s simply untrue. False. I never said that. I merely pointed out that JH abandoned a question made by another commenter
The question that I supposedly "abandoned" was clearly an act of trolling, as it was asking HC to restate a position that was already clearly its policy. And the question was posed in an obviously trolling way, namely:
>>Will the contributors here at holocaust controversies join me in condemning these outrageous laws and the governments that enact them?
The obvious answer is that we have no need to do so as our policy has already been stated many times on here. I strongly suspected, and still do, that the questioner already knew this. It was thus a matter of not feeding the troll.
Yesterday at 2.13pm on the Cesspit, Mr Bankdraft referred to my HC colleagues as "spooky, even dangerous, people. There is no question that they are vindictive, obsessional, and vile." He then had the cheek to come on here today and play the "civility" card, as if he were a different person who had never posted those words. Self-awareness does not appear to be one of his gifts.
PS to my comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 11:02:00 PM:
A blog post with the petition text, as per my comment of Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57:00 AM, will go up next weekend.
The reason why it doesn’t go up today is that I would like to monitor the follow-up to such post (namely the whining it is likely to arouse on the Cesspit) from day one and might have no time to do so next week due to a business trip outside the country.
The above is just in case Mr. Bankdraft should feel like indulging in conjectures that I have "backed off" or so from my proposal.
Roberto,
Thank you for keeping me informed. I will loook for it next weekend -- it seems a step in the right direction.
Regards,
B
>it seems a step in the right direction
… which I hope more "Revisionists" will be willing to accompany this time.
… and the subsequent post by "Wahrheitseeker". :-)
I honestly was not aware of this site's position on denial laws. I'm sure that I could have researched it on my own but I was fairly certain/hopeful I could get somebody to defend such laws. That is why I spent so many words setting up my question. Anyway, I'm sorry for any problems that my question has caused but I agree with Butch that all that was needed was to join me in condemning such laws, and, if you felt it necessary, chastising my lack of knowledge about the site's stated policy.
To quickly sum up my feeling on holocaust denial, I don’t understand how the moderators here can pretend that there is no argument. Someone posted to me that revisionism is a faith position. The MO here seems to be to label anyone who disagrees with the official narrative either a racist, lunatic, or ignoramus. I conceded long ago that I may be the latter, but per our discussions I have not been proven so. I have not seen a single piece of evidence supporting the official narrative that has not been reasonably refuted by revisionism. Please demonstrate that I am an ignoramus so I can change my mind and start denouncing the racist lunatics with you.
ngoodgame,
You caused no problems but provided me with an opportunity, thanks.
Your "show me I'm wrong" - stance is as old as the hills. I suggest you register on the RODOH forum and join the Holocaust & Genocide discussion there. Then we'll see what's behind your big words.
I look forward to finding you there when I'm back.
Roberto,
My “show me I’m wrong stance” may be as old as the hills but this implies that defenders of the official narrative have yet to demonstrate with irrefutable evidence why revisionism is wrong. If flat earthers demand to be shown where they’re wrong, I could easily compile a long list including satellite photos, maps, etc. I would do more than simply explain that “your stance is old”. In fact, if I engaged with flat earthers frequently, I would gather maybe the top 5 pieces of evidence that the earth is in fact round. Each time a flat earther asked me to prove them wrong, I would cut and paste my arguments and say there, refute this. If they had evidence to the contrary, I would weigh it accordingly and would not feel a need to misrepresent it to the general public. While establishing my argument, there would be no need to present false evidence or use expert witnesses that were documented liars as this would undermine my position. Nor would I have to engage in name calling or questioning the motives of those who continued to believe in a flat earth. True, there was a time when those who claimed the earth was “citrus shaped” were imprisoned or tortured, but again, if we were to do this to flat earthers today, it would probably just ad legitimacy to their position.
Again, it is my contention that there is no evidence to support the official narrative that has not been reasonably refuted by revisionism. Instead, when one suggests that perhaps there are problems with the official narrative, they are maligned as lunatics or racists, marginalized, and in many places prosecuted (treatment not unlike that given to those who once suggested the earth was round). I am pleased to learn that the moderators here have a stated policy against the latter, but undoubtedly they sanction and engage in the former.
I will be happy to join in discussions at the RODOH forum. Do they have experts there that are privy to evidence not available to the experts here at HC?
>> In fact, if I engaged with flat earthers frequently, I would gather maybe the top 5 pieces of evidence that the earth is in fact round.
That would be a dumb move, because you'd have thousands of pieces of evidence at your disposal. Restricting yourself to 5 pieces would be playing the Flat Earther at his own cherrypicking game.
Historians don't operate that way. Hilberg's 1961 study and Browning's more recent one both refer to thousands of primary sources, not just five. Deniers have to refute each and every one of those sources, not just cherrypick two or three and spin a "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" fallacy from them. If you can point me to a denier who has gone through all these sources, or even the majority of them, and made an honest attempt to rebut them, I'm all ears.
Roberto,
I don’t know if you’re serious or just enjoy the banter... I suspect it’s the latter.
In any event, I thought any initial exchange with you was fruitless and therefore I chose not to engage you and told you as much from the beginning.
I AM busy which means I necessarily have to pick and choose the way in which I spend my time. Am I required to clear it through you every time I make love to my wife? I have friends at CODOH, people I regularly correspond with and share information (both via open forum and PM). If I chose to communicate with them, I’ll do it without your permission.
You can spin your email correspondence anyway you wish but you contacted “someone’s” place of employment with the specific intent of harming him -- if you continue to deny that, then probably there is no middle ground.
I’m not calling you a liar, and of course I have no way of knowing what goes on inside your mind but do think I am just plain stupid? You used “holocaust denier” in the body of the email. If you were serious, you would have contacted the office and inquired if “someone” was employed there and how you might contact him?
Last point, I did not mean to suggest that I had initiated the “holocaust denial law petition”. That thought never even remotely entered my mind. I gave you (or thought I did) full credit for that and I do think it a step in the right direction and hope you follow up on it.
I will allow that the phraseology “RM has agreed to post a petition... “ could be interpreted that it was my idea but it wasn’t and I never meant to suggest it was. Also, realize that the particular correspondence that you picked apart was not directed you -- it was directed to another individual with whom I maintain an extensive correspondence. All the pertinent information -- including you idea of a petition -- is clearly documented for anyone who really gives a fuck. Why do you assume that I am automatically being duplicitous? Why?
I even said in my CODOH post that RODOH did not appear to be the propaganda mouthpiece that I initially thought it was. I may well post there. Come on man, were both grown men, let’s drop this “gossip column” dialogue. Post he petition, I’ll sign it and suggest to CODOH members to sign it as well.
Finally “ngoodgame” has become something of a pawn in this thing but it is clear he asked a perfectly reasonable and logical question (concerning denial laws) and he was ignored until I pointed it out. After that JH made a couple of impotently weak -- even bizarre -- efforts at defending himself (which I rightfully referred to “damage control”). He (ngoodgame) is still out there (and apparently following the action) and is available for “recruitment”. If you maintain your school-girl tactics, he’s going to naturally dig deeper into the controversy and if he does that, he will come away as a doubter or skeptic.
B
RM,
If I hadn't had a couple of beer, you probably could not have dragged me in to this but let me ask you what the fuck do you think I meant when when I said:
RM has agreed to draft and post a renunciation of holocaust denial laws petition at HC (and I’m assuming at R.O.D.O.H. as well) and when he does, I agreed to post a copy at CODOH.
How is it even remotely possible that you twist that into "my baby?" You wonder why I call you disingenuous.
The most bizarre thing about this exchange is that you are actually going to defend himself. Do you really want to end up in the same catagory as JH?
B
P.S. You do get points for robbing me of 20 minutes.
JH,
Well, I ask for one piece of evidence which has not been reasonably refuted, which supports the position that millions of Jews died in gas chambers during WWII. Instead of listing one, you insist that I provide a revisionist who has made an honest attempt to rebut at least a majority of the thousands of pieces of evidence supporting the above position.
It seems as if you sensed a trap and chose to evade it. Perhaps you missed my point in the previous post. If I engaged with flat earthers on a regular basis and was familiar with their argument and its strengths and weaknesses. I would have memorized a handful of the best arguments that I could rattle off at the drop of a hat. I wouldn’t need to do any research; I would just list the top 5-10 reasons that convince me personally that their position is incorrect. This would in no way limit me to these 5-10 pieces of evidence as I would have thousands of others I could fall back on. However, I must say that if the top 5-10 pieces of evidence that I offered were reasonably rebutted, I would have to begin to reevaluate my position.
You chose not to offer any evidence and claimed it would “be playing the Flat Earther at his own cherrypicking game”. Further down you say that revisionists have to refute each of thousands of pieces of evidence and “not just cherrypick two or three and spin a "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" fallacy from them”.
The problem with your above statements is that you make it sound as if the flat earther or the revisionist is cherrypicking the evidence. In the previous post, I clearly asked you to select the most powerful piece of evidence which supports your position. Again, this in no way limits you to just that piece of evidence. I know you don’t have time to write me a book so I thought you could just pull out your big guns and briefly explain to me why my position is untenable.
Now I understand that you are trying to express that a single piece of evidence pulled from the context of thousands of others which supposedly corroborate it will drastically reduce the power of that piece of evidence. I understand and appreciate your perspective on this. Nevertheless the same would be true of me debating with a flat earther yet I wouldn’t hesitate to offer my best evidence. It would not be foolish, as you claim, for two reasons. First, it would encourage debate and I would at least have the satisfaction that I gave my best effort to enlighten the flat earther. Secondly, truth is on my side and therefore, there is no way that a flat earther could ever reach the threshold of offering a reasonable rebuttal to the pieces of evidence I offered even if they are taken out of the context of thousands of other pieces of supporting evidence.
As for your counter proposal, which I believe was offered in order to discourage debate. First, I would have to have a working knowledge of the “thousands of pieces of evidence” then I would need to be familiar enough with a revisionist and his work to know that he addressed at least more than half of these pieces of evidence. Finally, I would have to be sure that this revisionist realized the subjective bar of “honesty” you set forth. All this would be next to impossible as I’m sure was your intent.
>> First, I would have to have a working knowledge of the “thousands of pieces of evidence”
Correct. Because the claim in your original post was that revisionists have refuted ALL these pieces of evidence: "it is my contention that there is no evidence to support the official narrative that has not been reasonably refuted by revisionism."
YOU were the person who set that bar, so the onus is on you to go through every piece of evidence and prove that it has been refuted. If you're now admitting that you're not familiar with much of this evidence, then clearly your original claim was false, and was a lame attempt at trolling.
To whom it may concern:
I do not know ngoodgame. I have never meet the man (or woman), I have never corresponded with him, and he has never answered (or even acknowledged) me in any way what-so-ever, even when I specifically quoted him or solicited a response from him.
It is my belief that he has taken this stance so that he can't be accused of associating with revisionists and thereby prejudicing his position.
You maintain a Blog called "Holocaust Controversies" and then double-talk everyone who shows up and does not toe the party line. What it seems to me that you have on your hand is an intelligent -- certainly logical -- man who has legitimate questions concerning the holocaust so he, rightfully, goes to a place called HC and what does he get?
Statements like this:
"... so the onus is on you to go through every piece of evidence and prove that it has been refuted."
You (JH) are aware that "every" is a superlative, are you not? And why do I get the feeling that if even he did go through "every" piece of evidence, it still wouldn't be good enough.
You tie the poor bastard up in linguistic knots rather than answer a simple fucking question.
Your "troll" defense is getting pretty impotent. Just to refresh your memory, you abandoned his earlier suggestion concerning a denubnciation of denial laws -- yet you were willing to spend hours defenfing your positinon -- until I pointed it out, then you used the well-worn "troll" defense.
I have an idea, why don't you answer his fucking questions?
B
>> You (JH) are aware that "every" is a superlative, are you not?
Why would a serious question contain a superlative? Why would someone receiving a question containing an unsustainable claim regard it as anything other than a troll exercise?
First ask Dr. Mathis (sp?) the linguistic definition of surperlative, then you will see the ridiculousness of asking NGG to "... go through every piece of evidence and prove that it has been refuted."
After that explain to me why you first called his (NGG) line of reasoning: "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", then later posted at RODOH (after I pointed out that you had abandoned the question) that the question had already been answered so needed further explanation, and now it appears that you have definitively settled on the troll defense.
If you keep this up they are going to have to start monitoring your posts.
All is not lost though! Anyone reading the full thread will see what an imbecile you are and the likelihood is they will extrapolate that thinking to the rest of the team. 'Course the bad news is that no one reads the posts -- except me and I already know you're an imbecile.
Answer his questions you pusillanimous fuck.
CORRECTION:
After that explain to me why you first called his (NGG) line of reasoning: "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", then later posted at RODOH (after I pointed out that you had abandoned the question) that the question had already been answered so needed no further explanation, and now it appears that you have definitively settled on the troll defense.
Butch, anyone reading your posts can see that you're a whining idiot. Now please fuck off and go play with your toys. Your abusive posts will get no further responses from me.
Bravo!
Perfect ending to your pathetic attempt as erudition. "Fuck off" is always a good retort.
I'm sure ngoodgame agrees with you completely.
B
Butch wanted to be spoonfed like a child and then became abusive when this was not forthcoming, then predictably started frothing when handed back his own "fuck off". Very childish.
For any adults reading this (i.e. not Butch), I apologise for Butch's psychotic imbecility, and his inability to understand that when I initially accuse someone of using a "falsus in uno" argument, I am, ipso facto, accusing someone of being a troll. It is only when they refuse to take the hint that I have to be more explicit.
Readers may also judge NG and Butch's sincerity by the fact that neither has, as yet, shown up on RODOH (which, unlike HC, is equipped with the full range of HTML functions required for a debating forum), despite Roberto having extended his invitation ten days ago.
So, was their intention to debate or to troll by making claims of a "falsus in uno" nature that they had no intention of trying to substantiate through proper academic presentation? The answer is obvious to all but the willfully blind.
JH,
It appears that what we have here is another bona fide case of quote mining. I have made it abundantly clear throughout my posts that my research into holocaust controversies is “limited” and that “honestly I am not certain whether or not six million Jews were murdered, most of them in gas chambers”, by the Germans during WW2. I have said this repeatedly from the very beginning as well as articulating my suspicions about the official narrative. True, I have not hesitated to call the contributors here when I believed that they have made far reaching assertions that did not necessarily follow from the evidence they provided. But I have always maintained that I am anxious to be introduced to evidence that heretofore I was not aware of that would “remove all doubts from my mind”.
As for the quote mining: Here, you liberate a perhaps unfortunately worded quote from the context of all my other posts and repeatedly stated positions in order to make it sound as if I claimed I was familiar with ALL the evidence supporting the official narrative:
“…the claim in your original post was that revisionists have refuted ALL these pieces of evidence: ‘it is my contention that there is no evidence to support the official narrative that has not been reasonably refuted by revisionism.’”
In proper context of course, my quote is not stating my belief as I have already pleaded ignorance on the issue. It is simply the argument I was advancing in order to elicit a response that I could then evaluate for merit.
You continue: “YOU were the person who set that bar, so the onus is on you to go through every piece of evidence and prove that it has been refuted. If you're now admitting that you're not familiar with much of this evidence, then clearly your original claim was false, and was a lame attempt at trolling.
My friend, here you are obviously being overly contentious and evading my question. I am not only now contending that I am not familiar with much of this evidence as I have clearly stated time and time again on posts that you have read, but I have repeatedly pleaded with the contributors here to introduce me to evidence that I quite possibly am ignorant to. So, according to your logic, this means that I am guilty of “a lame attempt at trolling.”
Now, you may be right. I suppose it would depend on what your definition of a lame attempt at trolling is, or what a troll is. Personally, I have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of trolling so it is difficult for me to evaluate your logic. But I do feel that I have effectively and honestly communicated to you my motives and suspicions, therefore, I can't help but think that you are engaging in ad homonym attacks designed to stifle debate.
Again, I have come to this forum in search of truth. I have time and again stated my position with the intent for dialogue and an honest evaluation of arguments. From the very beginning, yours was an adversarial approach as my questioning of orthodoxy caused you to attack me as dishonest and biased.
I feel that my positions have been purposely misrepresented and my questions and concerns have been overlooked. Minutiae is repeatedly nitpicked and parsed while the main thrust of my argument is ignored. I have spent way too much energy clarifying already obvious statements and iterating and reiterating my position. None of this gets me any closer to the historical truth of WW2, it just tells me that I have wasted my time and energy trying to find answers on this forum.
Finally, I have been invited to join another forum. The only sensible reason that was offered as to why this other forum is superior to the current one is that it “is equipped with the full range of HTML functions…” I’m sorry, but the problems I have experienced on this forum have nothing to do with limited HTML functions. Why should I believe my experience would be any different at the RODOH forum?
>> I am not only now contending that I am not familiar with much of this evidence as I have clearly stated time and time again on posts that you have read, but I have repeatedly pleaded with the contributors here to introduce me to evidence that I quite possibly am ignorant to. So, according to your logic, this means that I am guilty of “a lame attempt at trolling.”
If you were genuinely interested in evidence, you would go to a library and take out copies of, for example, Browning and Hilberg, both of whom were mentioned by myself above. You would not be asking myself to condense those texts into "your five best arguments".
I would sincerely recommend that you read those authors then write a list of questions on queries that you have about their evidence, if you still believe it to be insufficient. Then post those questions on RODOH.
If you are not willing to do this, then readers can make up their own minds about your motivation.
Part of the definition of trolling is an act of asking questions without serious intent. I'd judge a troll on whether he's framing his statements in a Straw Man manner that reveals his lack of seriousness about the subject, such as when you wrote “honestly I am not certain whether or not six million Jews were murdered, most of them in gas chambers”. No historian today claims that most of the six million were murdered in gas chambers. That's why you need to do some proper reading before you make statements of this nature, as they reveal whether you have a genuine interest in history.
Note to Butch:
The petition is up, see under
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/02/petition-to-german-legislator.html
You're quite the hysteric, aren't you, Butch?
I guess I'll let our readers amuse themselves with your furious outbursts for a while before responding to them. I have much other things to do today, anyway.
Jonnie Hargis has modified and deleted some of Butch's posts on the Cesspit, so Butch's whining about censorship is doubly ironic.
JH,
Yeah, the deleted post, ironically had to do with you.
I posted a screen-shot of your "A Note to Bankdraft" where you attempt to acquit yourself of an earlier lie (but you fucked up the English) and the CODOH moderator rightly pointed out that your lack of linguistic acumen is not relevant to the topic of holocaust revisionism.
In case you are not familiar with the error (I pointed it out on your "A note to Bankdraft post), here it is again:
Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.
When it should have said:
Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.
In other words inclusion of the prefix "anti" forms a double negative and effectively states HC's policy as being pro-revisionism laws.
Pretty shabby work for a bunch of PhDs... or maybe it was intentional.
The CODOH moderator also noted that since you identified a "Jonnie Hargis" as a moderator when in fact there is no "Jonnie Hargis" even registered as a member at COHOH.
Most posters at any forum choose to use a pseudonym (either for artistic or privacy reasons) and should be addressed as such.
HC long ago -- perhaps never -- held much stock in ethics so I'm sure it came natural to you try and "expose" someone who has the gall to express his or her right to free speech.
I'm wondering if the RODOH moderators would have been as diligent? What do you think? I still have the screen-shot so maybe I'll go over there and try it.
Butch
Wow, such a true, free and honest debating revisionist that he even defends his own censorship. Your post was not deleted because of it being "off Holocaust topic." Had there been such a policy, Potpie's post on Harrison's "Guide to Proper Capitalization", which only attacks Harrison, and says NOTHING of the Holocaust would have been removed long ago.
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=4705
May I ask why you did not post a link to the Holocaust Controversies? In what intellectual standard or judgement is that honest or fair?
Truth,
I just tried the links and for whatever reason, they are being truncated. You may have to type in the entire link to view the screenshots, or try these.
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9637/capturewiz018yj0.jpg
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/9841/capturewiz020jt1.jpg
B
P.S. Don't forget to answer my question.
Butch
>In other words inclusion of the prefix "anti" forms a double negative and effectively states HC's >policy as being pro-revisionism laws.
>Pretty shabby work for a bunch of PhDs... or maybe it was intentional.
That comment has me worried about your sanity, even more so than your lame rambling against the integrity of this blog’s contributors and your paranoia about our alleged policy of "specifically publishing private citizens personal information". Sure you’re all right?
I hope your "anti" confusion is just a linguistic one.
But that’s not why I’m writing to you. The reason why I write is the following announcement in your comment of January 14, 2008 4:09:00 AM:
«Check "New Postings in a day or so and you'll know exactly how I presented it to them.»
I have seen no such new posting so far. Did you have no time yet, or did your honorable intention fall victim to "Hannover" Hargis’ censoring scissor?
RH,
You took a week to get your petition posted and it was already written so fuck-off.
No, it was not deleted but I have decided against posting something that asks people to sign a petition that specifically refers to them as ignorant or stupid (or whatever the inane quote is).
I will bring it to the intention of the CODOH folk that a petition exists at HC and let them decide.
BTW, you are wrong about the double negative. Read it again.
B
JH,
I never said you couldn't refer to anyone by any name you choose BUT revealing personal information about individuals is a violation of CODOH policy so when I posted a screenshot of your improperly worded "denial law" policy, I (not you) inadvertently violated policy and the post was rightfully deleted.
Jonathan I really should leave you alone because you aren't too sharp. I don't necessarily mean that as an insult but your conclusions are just plain bizarre.
I genuinely thought you were a 21 year old kid. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw you were a PhD. I can only assume the continued personal attacks against me are due to the spankings you have been receiving by me.
BTW, I realize that you were probably not the drafter of the improperly worded "denial-law" policy, I was just taking a cheap-shot at you not catching it.
B
P.S. Before you dash for the keyboard, keep in mind your earlier post:
"Butch, anyone reading your posts can see that you're a whining idiot. Now please fuck off and go play with your toys. Your abusive posts will get no further responses from me."
Andrew Mathis has asked me to add these points:
"(1) Hargis does what he does from his workplace, which is funded by California taxpayer money. Ergo, those people of California (which has one of the higher Jewish populations in the States) deserve to know how their taxes are being spent.
(2) Furthermore, Hargis is in clear violation of the university computing policy at UCLA. See:
http://www.geocities.com/hargis_ucla/
He's also in violation of U.S. law, at least until the statute at hand is challenged in the courts.
(3) Hargis has a very long history (going on nine years now) of censoring the posts of those who disagree with him -- even those who disagree even a little bit -- and then doing a victory dance. He also has a history of banning people from posting and then baiting them from the comfort of his perceived anonymity. Any of these things would get a man a mouthful of bloody chiclets were the person in front of you. Hargis needed to know that he could be found -- and was found -- because he was very pompous but very stupid.
(4) Finally, he refused to debate on neutral territory. Thus his cover had to be blown to smoke him out.
(5) Now: I have *ALWAYS* maintained that I would call off this, what Nick once called the "epic battle" between us two, if he would simply apologize for his behavior -- even pseudonymously. He refuses to do this also.
And so what if, at the Führerbunker, he doesn't use his real name? Does that put some obligation on we who are banned from his domain to call him by his dumb-ass nickname? Of course not. And as long as he continues to deny that he is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Jonnie Hargis, I refuse to call him "Hannover." Fuck him.
Besides, his information that I found on him was all in the public domain. He was just too God-damned stupid to cover his tracks. I got a rash of death threats years ago when I was "discovered" several years ago by Don Black and my address and phone number put on the Stormfront mailing list. I changed my phone number and have been unlisted ever since (over thirteen years). I haven't been bothered "in the real world" since, except for Fritz Berg and Michael Collins Piper trying (unsuccessfully) to get me fired.
And, don't forget (6) This is a dangerous game we play with some very dangerous people playing. I have a right to know who Hargis is and where he is in case legal action ever needs to be taken.
Well that's my $0.02.
a.m.
(Feel free to post this to the blog in the replies.)"
Butch,
When was I being sarcastic anywhere in my post?
As for Hannover's explanation that PotPie's thread came about from a discussion on Bradley Smith, so what? It's unrelated to the ACTUAL 'HOLOCAUST'. The reference to Smith was regarding his spelling of a literary figure. All the thread consists of is an childish attack on Harrison's grammar.
I do not need the screenshots, as I viewed your post when it appeared. In general, I doubt anyone and anything, and expect proof to be offered on many accounts. I believe in your present discussion, Roberto has placed his cards on the table for all to see (emails sent out, responses, prior discussions, etc...).
I also am not one who believes in breaking personal privacy. I have kept my name off line, and will continue to do so, yet it seems to me that Hannover has already blown his own cover. It is the only area discussed so far (that I have read) by Dr. Mathis where I am in agreement with him.
As to the link issue, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to refer to and attack an organization, post a screenshot of them, and not provide the url link to the website. When I posted a criticism of Harrison and his work, I directly linked to the relevant HC blog post. You did no such thing.
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=4566&highlight=holocaust+controversies
And to answer your question: I viewed your original CODOH post, and watched it disappear. I have not read the entire discussion, but have attempted to keep up with the major contentions.
>You took a week to get your petition posted and it was already written so fuck-off.
I told you that I took would take a week because I would be out of the country for one week, whereas you told me to check for your post on CODOH "in a day or so".
>No, it was not deleted but I have decided against posting something that asks people to sign a >petition that specifically refers to them as ignorant or stupid (or whatever the inane quote is).
I see.
The "inane" quote really got to you, didn’t it?
>I will bring it to the intention of the CODOH folk that a petition exists at HC and let them decide.
With direct link I expect.
>BTW, you are wrong about the double negative. Read it again.
Read again, didn’t change my mind.
RM,
Now this part is just for fun because I can't tell if you are and ego-maniac or just refuse to agree with anything I say.
First, is it accurate to say HC's stance on Revisionism Laws is as follows:
Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.
My follow-on question is, of course, going to be: if the above is true how is it that the opposite (below) is also true?
Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States. We would prefer that continental countries such as Germany, Austria and France did not make martyrs out of Deniers.
The second block of text is what is published at HC.
"Nor" is synonymous with "neither", at least according to my dictionary -- though it may have been tampered with by Nazis.
The inane quote didn't really get to me but it did get to me that you wanted me to ask CODOH members to sign a petition that clearly states they are stupid and I simply do not believe that to be the case.
Besides is was said 50 years after the war and it refers to the "Germany's recent past" so there is some doubt it it even refers to the holocaust, but I'll accept it does.
You are clearly a bright fellow but your hubris seriously compromises your objectivity.
A link to your petition is currently posted at CODOH (and so far has not been deleted).
B
Nor is not synonymous with neither.
Sigh.
a.m.
RM,
It is a minor point to be sure but your stance epitomizes the hubris I spoke of; rather than agree that it is poorly (actually, incorrectly) worded, you continue to defend it. Oh, well.
I'll check with someone local (if I can find any university graduates in 'ol Bama) for clarification. In the meantime, I'll assume thesis and antithesis are the same thing.
Anti: 1 a: of the same kind but situated opposite, exerting energy in the opposite direction, or pursuing an opposite policy.
This according to m-w.com... but the site may have been hacked by Nazis.
Section 220a subsection (1) reads as follows (see under http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#220a):
(1) Whoever, with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group or one characterized by its folk customs by:
1. killing members of the group;
2. inflicting serious physical or emotional harm, especially of the type indicated in Section 226 on members of the group;
3. placing the group in living conditions capable of leading, in whole or in part, to their physical destruction;
4. imposing measures which are intended to prevent births within the group;
5. forcibly transferring children of the group into another group,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life.
So? Who's doing any of that?
Conversely, it appears Article 19 [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] is being severely compromised.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
>RM,
>It is a minor point to be sure >but your stance epitomizes the >hubris I spoke of; rather than >agree that it is poorly
>(actually, incorrectly) worded, >you continue to defend it. Oh, >well.
>I'll check with someone local (if >I can find any university >graduates in 'ol Bama) for >clarification. In the meantime, >I'll assume thesis and antithesis >are the same thing.
>Anti: 1 a: of the same kind but >situated opposite, exerting >energy in the opposite direction, >or pursuing an opposite policy.
>This according to m-w.com... but >the site may have been hacked by >Nazis.
However hard you try, this is not an issue of thesis and antithesis. It's a matter of whether you refer to laws prohibiting Holocaust Denial as "Holocaust Denial laws" or as "anti-Holocaust Denial laws". Makes no difference to me, both terms obviously mean the same.
>Section 220a subsection (1) reads >as follows (see under >http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statute>s/StGB.htm#220a):
>(1) Whoever, with the intent of >destroying as such, in whole or >in part, a national, racial or >religious group or one >characterized by its folk customs >by:
>1. killing members of the group;
>2. inflicting serious physical or >emotional harm, especially of the >type indicated in Section 226 on >members of the group;
>3. placing the group in living >conditions capable of leading, in >whole or in part, to their >physical destruction;
>4. imposing measures which are >intended to prevent births within >the group;
>5. forcibly transferring children >of the group into another group,
>shall be punished with >imprisonment for life.
>So? Who's doing any of that?
I thought you might want to know what Nazi crimes subsection (3) of Section 130 of the German criminal code (the Holocaust denial law or anti-Holocaust denial law, whichever you wish to call it) refers to as «an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1)».
Sorry if this was too complex for you to understand.
>Conversely, it appears Article 19 >[Universal Declaration of Human >Rights] is being severely >compromised.
Certainly. People are being criminally prosecuted for publicly uttering stupid things, and that shouldn't be so.
Presumably Butch will also accuse the framers of this law of being illiterate?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Act
RM,
Article 19 does not use the word "stupid" anywhere in the text and the "stupid utterances" you refer to are only "stupid" because you say they are -- very similar to the stupidity mentioned in your inane quote -- and that's not quite enough proof. If I call you stupid, does it make it so?
Some people think it stupid to eat meat while others are perfectly content with it. Some people think adding the prefix "anti" to a word does not change it's meaning whereas others think otherwise (fortunately the ladder can be shown to be accurate).
There are plenty of inconsistencies with the standard holocaust story and, again, it's your hubris that costs you objectivity.
Anyway, don't want to get adversarial this morning. I have two huge writing assignments today so will be off-line all day. I'll post at RODOH as soon as time permits.
JH,
Jesus Christ Jonathan. That's why it's known as the Sherman Act or, more commonly, the Sherman Anti-Trust act but never as the Sherman Trust Act.
You guys would have me believe that the Sherman Trust Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust act are identical.
Let's table this thing until I can talk to an English Professor. BTW, what does Mathis say?
B
What do I think about what?
a.m.
>Article 19 does not use the word "stupid" anywhere in the text and the "stupid utterances" you >refer to are only "stupid" because you say they are -- very similar to the stupidity mentioned in >your inane quote -- and that's not quite enough proof. If I call you stupid, does it make it so?
Stop whining, Butch. If you want to see what a stupid thing "Revisionism" is, come over to RODOH and defend your theories in open debate. Of course chances are that you’re too enamored with your articles of faith to realize how stupid they are, but then you will at least serve as another instructive demonstration object.
>Some people think it stupid to eat meat while others are perfectly content with it. Some people >think adding the prefix "anti" to a word does not change it's meaning whereas others think >otherwise (fortunately the ladder can be shown to be accurate).
Just make sure that you don’t fall off the ladder, my friend.
>There are plenty of inconsistencies with the standard holocaust story and, again, it's your >hubris that costs you objectivity.
It takes no lack of objectivity to consider "Revisionism" stupid, common sense and ideological indifference will do. The opposite does not apply, however. One must have subordinated objectivity to ideologically motivated pre-conceived notions in order to believe that "Revisionism" has a merit.
And as to "inconsistencies with the standard holocaust story", I have probably seem more such "inconsistencies" than you and can assure you that none of them affects the reasonability of concluding that, whatever inaccuracies may be contained in or uncertainties left by eyewitness testimonies and other evidence, they do not affect the reasonability of concluding on the factuality of the systematic mass killing that becomes apparent from this evidence, and they are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative explanation for the evidence – especially the inane explanation that it was all fabricated by some gigantic "hoax" – that you might offer.
>Anyway, don't want to get adversarial this morning. I have two huge writing assignments today >so will be off-line all day. I'll post at RODOH as soon as time permits.
OK, see you then.
AM
>What do I think about what?
Start with
«You guys would have me believe that the Sherman Trust Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust act are identical.»
Then replace "Sherman Trust Act" by "Holocaust Denial Laws" and "Sherman Anti-Trust Act" with "Anti-Holocaust Denial Laws".
Before I answer this, let me say this about myself: Despite the fact that I make frequent typing errors in my blog posts, I'm actually really persnickety about grammar -- I'm basically what is called a prescriptive grammarian. However, that being said, certain rules are arcane and do nothing to get in the way of meaning, e.g., ending sentences with preposition. So I don't enforce those rules, either for myself or my students.
The comparison between "Sherman Anti-Trust" and "Anti-Holocaust-Denial" is false because of the historical contexts.
In the case of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it's obvious the law is passed against Trusts. This is inherent in the name.
There is, in fact, an ambiguity in "Anti-Holocaust-Denial laws," but it is clarified by asking one's self a simple question: Other than the government of Turkey, is there any government in the world that enforces the denial of a genocide?
The answer, of course, is "no." That being the case, stating that we at HC are "against Holocaust-Denial laws" (without the "anti-") is clear without needing prefix.
In the former case (anti-Trust), the meaning would be completely opposite without the prefix. In the latter case, mere reality prevents this from being a problem.
I vote with my colleagues on this one.
Note: I corrected Jon on an earlier grammatical point in private e-mail. I forget the issue.
a.m.
"Let it be stated from the outset that we do not endorse censorship of any kind; nor are we in favour of anti-Holocaust Denial laws being passed in Britain or the United States."
Sheesh. I wrote that, and now a maroon comes along to tell me he's confused?
I'd have thought it was obvious that 'anti-Holocaust Denial laws' is another way of saying 'laws against Holocaust denial'.
Equally, saying 'anti-racist legislation' is another way of saying 'legislation against racism'.
Now where's that deadhorse icon? Oh, wait, at RODOH, of course...
Butch, quit whining and get your ass over to RODOH. You have at least 15 likeminds to cheer you on there. You won't be alone. The boss is a revisionist, even.
And it'll give everybody waaaay less headaches that we're getting reading the scrunched-up blog comments posts w/o HTML formatting.
Butch writes, "Well, it is another way of saying it but it's incorrect."
No, it isn't, and I'm a licensed grammarian.
a.m.
AM,
Butch writes, "Well, it is another way of saying it but it's incorrect."
No, it isn't, and I'm a licensed grammarian.
a.m.
AM,
May I say this?
"Well, it's another say of saying it but it creates an ambiguity."
Did you not acknowledge an ambiguity? I am genuinely interested in the nuances of the English language.
B
RM,
Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio. - Seneca.
You're a small man.
Butch
Butch,
You have quoted me correctly. The issue is that, as I already pointed out, the ambiguity of the wording is straightened out by context -- not just historical context, but the context of the rest of the paragraph.
If you're asking which would be the "correct" way of stating this, my answer is that I don't know. I'd have to look it up. But at the same time, the non-prescriptivist part of me says that meaning isn't lost, so it's no harm, no foul.
a.m.
AM,
Thank you. I agree fully that the meaning was never lost -- certainly not on me.
The entire exchange had little to do with history anyway, rather it was a petty game played between RM and me.
Please do not trouble yourself to research it. I merely suggested that two statements, identical except that one contained the prefix "anti", could not carry the same meaning.
The "correct" way -- bearing in mind you are the grammarian. -- would almost have to be sans "anti".
Respectfully,
Butch
>RM,
>Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine >nimio. - Seneca.
>You're a small man.
Small is who makes a big issue out of insignificant matters, my friend. And from the howling about ngoodgame's question or request having been "ignored" to the "anti" exercise, you have shown to be such a character.
Butch's fellow antisemites on the Cesspit don't seem to approve of him posting here or on RODOH. Kiwichap writes: "Is there any way to put Bankdraft on ignore? I have a lot of young folk regularly reading CODOH, so the ignore feature would be a blessing."
With friends like these...
JH,
I'm going to let you get away with that one simply because I have shoved your face in the dirt so many times that even you deserve a victory now and again.
The post was deleted by the moderator as inappropriate but I suspect that will mean nothing to you.
What truly perplexes me about you is that I got insulted (the only real word to use) by a fellow CODOH member because I chose to do what I told RM I would do: post a link to the his HC petition.
Another CODOH member obviously found it objectionable and made his inappropriate -- but probably heartfelt -- comment.
Jonathan, I don't know you and I have no (real) animus toward you but do you ever think before you post? Do you possibly suffer from "Attention Deficit Disorder?" Do you actually process thought? Do you believe everyone to be as slow witted as you?
You are a PhD for fuck's sake and you're supposed to be able to follow logical arguments and are presumably educated in reasoning.
PhD, after all, stands for "Doctor of Philosophy" but your reasoning is so diaphanous, that you force me to call into question the UK educational system.
Butch.
P.S. It's a small point but further illustrates your cavalier style of thought; your last sentence should have read "With friends like that..." (not "these).
>Another CODOH member obviously found it objectionable and made his inappropriate -- but >probably heartfelt – comment.
Chances are that Butch wouldn't even mind being kicked in the ass as long as it happens for the "Revisionist" cause.
And as long as it’s heartfelt, of course. :-)
"Kicked" would just be the foreplay.
I'm guessing you're speaking from experience?
>RM's latest utterly ridiculous statement (there's some original stuff at the end of you 'not talking >behind someone's back').
>Mr. Turley,
>As I also don’t believe in talking about people behind their backs... but if I did, here's how I'd >do it in 10 pages:
Behind whose back am I supposed to have been talking, little man? Yours? You know the RODOH thread from which you’ve been quoting:
http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=339.topic&start=26&stop=39
And you even have responded here to one of my posts there, IIRC. You furthermore should have realized that this is the thread I use to respond to your mouthing off about me on CODOH, so every time you do that you should check for my response on this RODOH thread. In other words, cut the crap.
>BTW, when you get your tongue out of Turley's ass,
Looks like the gun-toting Alabama red-neck is coming to the fore. :-)
>let me know if you signed the petition or not. Really when you think about it they really are >quite similar. Yours requires that revisionist refer to themselves as stupid and Turley's just asks >the German government to grow some balls.
I prefer mine, because it is my conviction that "Revisionists" are a bunch of stupid buggers. Mr. Turley’s petition fails to make that essential point and reads as if "Revisionist" crap had some merit, so it would be against my convictions to sign it. Of course I also don’t expect Mr. Turley to sign mine.
Just for my own peace of mind, does anyone still seriously doubt that RM is a sociopath?
He chides Hannover for calling him "names" then posts this:
To be sure, I have also called you and will keep on calling you a liar and a coward. But there’s a difference between my applying these designations to you and you calling me names. The difference is that my statements are accurate and appropriate.
Profile of the Sociopath:
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning: They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self: Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Pathological Lying: Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt: A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions: When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love: [Puttinng your tongue up Turleys ass nay count as love -- better check with Jonathan]
Need for Stimulation: Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy: Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature: Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency: Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability: Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity: Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle: Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility: Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily
>Just for my own peace of mind, does anyone still seriously doubt that RM is a sociopath?
>He chides Hannover for calling him "names" then posts this:
>To be sure, I have also called you and will keep on calling you a liar and a coward. But there’s a >difference between my applying these designations to you and you calling me names. The >difference is that my statements are accurate and appropriate.
Allow me a correction, my dear lying Butch (or is it just that your hysteria keeps you from reading properly?): the issue is not "Hannover" Hargis calling me names. The issues is his doing mendacious victory dances on a board where I am not allowed to post, falsely claiming that I was bested in debate there when actually he managed to overcome my inconvenient posting only through cowardly censorship (deleting or retaining my posts) and eventual banning. That’s what sucks about the fellow, and it should be clear enough from every post I have dedicated to his babbling on the thread
http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=161.topic&start=1&stop=25
Next time, my dear Butch, try to read a little before writing.
As to the rest of your post: thanks for the self-portrayal. It more or less coincides with the impressions I have gained of you so far. And I'm sure it won't be lost on our readers either.
"Allow me a correction"
Certainly you are allowed a correction -- everyone is -- but I was under the impression that you didn't make any mistakes?
I'm also wondering why, if you are making the correction, I'm considered the liar?
No, you are indeed a sociopath. At first I put it down to hubris and bravado and I made my "hand in the cookie-jar" analogy so clearly I was hitting all around it but I have downgraded your condition to sociopathic.
There are very few people who would read this: "To be sure, I have also called you and will keep on calling you a liar and a coward. But there’s a difference between my applying these designations to you and you calling me names. The difference is that my statements are accurate and appropriate." and not consider you a either a school boy or... a sociopath.
It's not as bad as you think. There is no doubt as to your intelligence, or as Seneca calls it, "cleverness" (Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio) and most sociopaths lead normal, even quite creative lives (it's those around them who suffer, but what do you care, you're a sociopath!)
BTW, I am clearly differentiating between sociopath and psychopath.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is any real treatment but even if there was, few sociopaths would take advantage of it because one of the primary symptoms is not believing they are ever at fault, preferring instead to think (or perhaps having no choice) they are indeed incapable of being at fault.
BTW, your "thanks for the self-portrayal. It more or less coincides with the impressions I have gained of you so far. And I'm sure it won't be lost on our readers either." is pretty weak don't ya think? You are much more creative than that. Kind of school-girl wouldn't you say?
'Course now that I know you are a sociopath (and you have de-facto admitted it), countering you becomes e-a-s-y.
I'm going to start posting under JH's thread ("a note to BD"), this one is waaaay too long... plus he makes more mistakes than you (he's even a bit embarrassing).
RODOH has turned out to be a good site. I haven't fully explored it but certainly exchanges are easier and there are more participants, so I thank you for that and wish you well.
Actually Roberto, I'm going to do more than that for you, I'm going to give you some advice that you can actually use. You should take your cleverness and turn it into some money and abandon this holohoax business (at least as a primary preoccupation).
It's doomed to a "Berlin-Wall" ending anyway and your cleverness is only going to last until you're about 40 or so, then the negative aspects of your disease will tip the scales toward regret and loneliness. Go make some cash while you can and live a bit.
BD
P.S. In a real twist of fate, I may get tossed from CODOH. I used the f-word and some nitwit complained. No resolution yet. Probably just get a warning but it would be ironic wouldn't you say? Now, go make some money.
>I'm also wondering why, if you >are making the correction, I'm >considered the liar?
Because you obviously made a claim against better knowledge.
As for the rest, thanks for continuing to display the sorry wacko you are. It's instructive and amusing.
I like your english grammar blog. It's a good blog for learn english grammar
Post a Comment