That is not what casual means or what was said.
Labour & Anti-Semitism.
- Thread starter cantsin
- Start date
andysays
Love and solidarity
There's a fine line between "trying to provide a bit of colour by talking about people you know" and "claiming some special knowledge or authority the rest of us don't have because we don't have access to your amazing social network". All too often (not just on this thread) you come across to me as engaging in the latter.
I don't know or particularly care if you're lying about this, but the fact that you know some bloke who converted to Judaism and subsequently had what you described as a "lavish" wedding doesn't add anything to the discussion, as far as I can see, it's just another version of "some of my best friends are jewish/black/gay etc"
Fair enough - that's your call.
Not sure opposition to that merits the opprobrium that I've received here but maybe that's more of a reflection of people who take contrary stances to my own, perhaps?
andysays
Love and solidarity
The opprobrium you receive here is more than merited by the ill-thought out nonsense you regularly come out with, most recently making ridiculous claims about holocaust denial, and it's not altogether surprising if a little of it spills over into areas where it's perhaps a little less merited.
You'd try the patience of a fucking saint, as my granny used to say...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
tbh from my pov you take stances which are frankly contrary to common sense, and all too often seem to come from a position of ignorance. take richard evans, for example. evans has written about the holocaust, most famously his 'telling lies about hitler'. but he is more famous as a historian of germany than a historian of the holocaust. martin gilbert, by contrast, has written a history of the holocaust and was professor of holocaust studies (iirc the title) at ucl in the mid-1990s. he would, i suggest, be a more prominent and indeed revered historian of the holocaust than evans. see Sir Martin Gilbert Obituary
Irving trial?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes, richard evans wrote a book about the irving trial. as i mentioned (telling lies about hitler) but that doesn't make him the country's most revered historian of the holocaust.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, the one that the post you're replying to made specific reference to. Don't dig the hole deeper.
And just go away of course.
He didn't just write a book, he was an expert witness at the bloody trial.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes. &?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Have you read the book? If so, could you outline on what basis Evans was requested by the defence to be an expert witness? As outlined by Evans himself in the book please. Does he mention his holocaust expertise among the list of reasons he gives?
Let's circle back to dodgy references and, in particular, inferences first.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
jesus mary and joseph, have you never heard the saying 'it is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than speak and prove you're one'?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, because a) that doesn't involve me b) it's been established that you misread in a massive way what another post said and to what it was directed.
So, let's have your reply to me.
But your argument is that you were not referring to him in any way whatsoever when you referred to "dodgy references and inferences", so why dig into his academic reputation at all unless you were actually doing so?
It's an odd way to go about things to say the least and amounts to a strange contradiction where you were saying someone was crap but it was not this person but they are crap anyway.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you said richard evans was the country's most revered historian of the holocaust. this is an example of you speaking from a position of ignorance. please go back and read post 1207. then read it again. and again until you understand it.
and i have never said or suggested or implied that 'richard evans is crap'. i have suggested that any poor historical practice within the work of lenni brenner would be more likely found in poor referencing and dodgy inferences than in use of forged documents. which everyone else apart from you comprehends.
Tom A
Goat among sheep
As an ex-LU member I find that Owen Jones is being quite sensible on this issue, FWIW.
If Richard Evans is irrelevant and all his theses are correct from your pov, fine but that is explicitly not how your posting reads.
Am happy to accept that you were not the most perspicacious and perhaps a little trigger happy and/or I misread what you posted, but that is how I, and I suspect many others, saw it.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
tbh you brought richard evans in this thing, yes Bernie Gunther mentioned richard evans in the post i quoted: but the subject of the post was lenni brenner and not richard evans. when i subsequently said i would post up some stuff about lenni brenner do you not think for even a moment that if i had meant richard evans i might have pointed out where evans had gone astray?
do you not think i'd have produced some evidence? dear jesus, i hope your legal work is of a higher standard than your posts here.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
But now means "blowhard who spouts shit at regular intervals".
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
What have you challenged anybody on? You've just made a malicious unfounded accusation of near holocaust denial which you still haven't had the guts to apologise for.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
tbh I haven't really seen an opinion from you on this thread.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
disagreement i can cope with. continual misunderstanding based on an inability to comprehend simple points, that's something i have more difficulty dealing with.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
As I made clear on page 40, it's not about your opinion differing, it's about the poor relationship your opinions expressed on this thread have with known fact.
Similar threads
