I told him to piss off. Edit: loon links brokenastro3 said...
May I have a right of reply?
Most of your viewers may share your own knee-jerk response of ‘Holocaust denier =Nazi= anti-Semitism,’ with the accompanying hate and rage; and this is the one any only topic in our culture where everyone knows they are supposed to believe it but no-one ever gets to hear what the evidence is supposed to be, and one gathers it would be very ethically damnable to inquire about it. For the one or two who wish to look into the subject and dare I say question it, permit me to recommend perusing ‘Dissecting the Holocaust’ by twenty-odd different authors which is the modern work on the subject: www. vho.org/GB/Books/dth/
You are quite right to call me a ‘denier’ in that I deny that anyone ever put Jews into gas chambers. That didn’t happen, its not part of the historical record. There are no documents, no photographs, no physical traces or remains, no post-mortem diagnoses of deaths by cyanide poisoning: there are only stories. In all the Nazi documentation, the ‘Final solution’ always meant the export of Jews, Eastwards, it never had a lethal meaning. The Bad-Arolsen archives in North Germany are the definitive record of who died in the camps, how many died, and how they died.
Thank you for allowing me to reply, have a nice day.
………………………………………
PS On a quite different topic, you say I ‘hassled’ a survivor of the Aldgate train-blast on 7/7: well I did have a fascinating conversation at the Kingston court with such a survivor who left me his e-mail address. Said over the first few days after the event he thought he was going mad because the reports kept alluding to Aldgate trains going the wrong way, i.e. towards King’s Cross, and to other stations Aldgate East and Liverpool Street, and then to the third carriage when he knew that it was the second. That might perhaps endorse my argument in ‘Aldgate - trains were going the wrong way’ www. nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11503
April 18, 2008 8:40 AM
i couldnt give a flying fuck if he gets sacked
I've no real problem if people on this site get him sacked. My slight twist is that this should get as much general airing as possilbe about the issue itself - that a 9/11er is also holocaust denier - less sure about specific attempts to force ucl's hand (though, really not worried if he does get booted out TBH).
he's not pratting away on the Stormunddrang boards under the pseudonym 'Zionist-hatah', ( or astro3 for that matter) he's writing as Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, PhD on sites that get thousands of hits a day
...and members of my husband's family died in Poland, his uncle in the camps. Luckily his father escaped from the back of a truck and was hidden by monks. They weren't Jewish, but Poles were considered 'untermensch' too.Members of my family died to protect Europe from the hateful idealogy of the Nazis. How sickening to see it resurfacing now, and trying to climb into the clothes of 'free speech' to spread its message of hate.
...and members of my husband's family died in Poland, his uncle in the camps. Luckily his father escaped from the back of a truck and was hidden by monks. They weren't Jewish, but Poles were considered 'untermensch' too.badgerkitten said:Members of my family died to protect Europe from the hateful idealogy of the Nazis. How sickening to see it resurfacing now, and trying to climb into the clothes of 'free speech' to spread its message of hate.
Oh, and I'm only alive, and Jewish in case you didn't know, BK, because my great-grandfather got out in time. He had the foresight to see what was happening before it was too late.
Nick K is no anti-semite. He is not 'resurfacing' the ideology of the nazis and I'm sure he finds it utterly objectionable. There is no 'message of hate' there.
If someone was to question the number of Native Americans killed during Wild West times, what would that make them?
If someone was to question the plight of the Aborigines during the British invasion of Australia, what would that make them?
Mistaken, maybe, but not necessarily evil.
I'm sure we could think of many examples.
Yes, I'm sure that many real anti-semites will question the holocaust to seek to minimise the horror caused by the nazi regime. However, that doesn't mean that those questioning the holocaust are anti-semitic, that is a grave error of logic.
If Nick K. is questioning aspects of the story it's because he genuinely believes they are questionable, and while we have freedom of thought and speech I don't have a problem with it. He isn't questioning that Jews died in vast numbers, in horrible circumstances.
Sorry to not be jumping on the bandwagon of hysteria.
Kollerstrom said:The Gestapo and Zionists were collaborating in the late 30s because they had in this respect similar aims
Kollerstrom said:You are quite right to call me a ‘denier’ in that I deny that anyone ever put Jews into gas chambers. That didn’t happen, its not part of the historical record. There are no documents, no photographs, no physical traces or remains, no post-mortem diagnoses of deaths by cyanide poisoning: there are only stories. In all the Nazi documentation, the ‘Final solution’ always meant the export of Jews, Eastwards, it never had a lethal meaning
Oh, and I'm only alive, and Jewish in case you didn't know, BK, because my great-grandfather got out in time. He had the foresight to see what was happening before it was too late.
Nick K is no anti-semite. He is not 'resurfacing' the ideology of the nazis and I'm sure he finds it utterly objectionable. There is no 'message of hate' there.
If someone was to question the number of Native Americans killed during Wild West times, what would that make them?
If someone was to question the plight of the Aborigines during the British invasion of Australia, what would that make them?
Mistaken, maybe, but not necessarily evil.
I'm sure we could think of many examples.
Yes, I'm sure that many real anti-semites will question the holocaust to seek to minimise the horror caused by the nazi regime. However, that doesn't mean that those questioning the holocaust are anti-semitic, that is a grave error of logic.
If Nick K. is questioning aspects of the story it's because he genuinely believes they are questionable, and while we have freedom of thought and speech I don't have a problem with it. He isn't questioning that Jews died in vast numbers, in horrible circumstances.
Sorry to not be jumping on the bandwagon of hysteria.
Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children’s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let’s hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly
If Nick K. is questioning aspects of the story it's because he genuinely believes they are questionable... He isn't questioning that Jews died in vast numbers, in horrible circumstances
I don't have a problem with it
But this isn't "grassing", it's disclosing abuse. Telling an academic institution that one of their staff may be a holocaust denier and racist who harasses the victims of crime and is trading on his relationship with the institution is a positive public service.
If someone was to question the number of Native Americans killed during Wild West times, what would that make them?
As far as I can tell, all allegations so far have been backed up by statements in the public domain. Others have better knowledge of the law than me, but afaik, there's no libel/slander hereIs it slander though?
Is it slander though?
In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.[1] "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
'Jazzz is deluded' isn't exactly a newsflash to anybody who reads your threads but your defense of Kollenstrom is nudging you over the line from 'oddball' to 'nutter', IMO.
I can't bear this...Jazz, how can you agree with this man who says it didn't happen?
...you make accusations of a bandwagon of hysteria. I'm not hysterical. I'm numb.
I can't get my head around the fact that the nice bloke I met at Glastonbury, sat and chatted with, had a beer with, can be this fucking stupid.