In the Reverend’s conspiracy-minded dream world, perhaps.Roberto wrote:
Why, Reverend, are historians supposed to control the movie industry?
No, it's a symbiotic relationship.
Another moronic article of faith. I consider it far more likely that the entertainment industry i) doesn’t necessarily look for the best advice because their objective is to provide entertainment, not historical information and ii) even where they do, they take the artistic license they are entitled to as entertainers. As to the news industry, it includes a variety of products ranging from rather serious and reliable periodicals to pamphlets hardly worth the paper they are printed on. Whoever relies on the latter for historical information has only his own stupidity to blame for not being properly informed.The entertainment and news industry is not getting the best advice because the convergence-of-interests is "Moral Certainty" and money.
Which obviously bothers the Reverend a lot. Very instructive.And Jews are well-represented in Hollywood and journalism, as everybody knows.
Exactly, Reverend. Write that behind your ears, and tell it to your “Revisionist” peers.But theology should not blur History, and no one owns it.
Off-topic and very instructive also for this reason.There is nothing holy about the Holy Land, IMHO,
Certainly not. They are just one of history’s less pleasant facts.nor are the gaschambers sacrosanct.
Do they? What would the Reverend like them to write that they haven’t written?Roberto wrote:
And I thought their job was to research the historical facts and write books to record these facts and provide accurate information to those who care to open such books...
Yeah, but strangely silent when they want to be.
Such “intelligent people” obviously haven’t even bothered to look up the IMT’s judgment at the Nuremberg Trial against the Major War Criminals, from which it clearly becomes apparent that the rumored mass production of soap from human fat never took place:That is why intelligent people still believe Human Soap and other such nonsense.
After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.
Source of quote:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/p ... ersecution
Emphasis is mine.
Considering the above, I can’t imagine a historian who ever endorsed the rumor of human soap production on an industrial scale. But perhaps the Reverend can show us one …
I see no “pious indignance” – what I have come across so far and modestly contributed to myself is the thorough debunking of the imbecility that “Revisionists” call a “challenge”, on the basis of evidence and solid arguments.And that's why the pious indignance when Revisionists challenge them just will not fly in countries which have no Thoughtcrimes laws
I neither see “Thoughtcrimes laws” anywhere. I only see laws against hate speech in certain countries – wrong and counterproductive, but not Orwellian.
Can the Reverend show us where and how that is done?and no way to keep dissidents from mining archives
That’s not inconvenient history. That’s irrelevant imbecility, given that if a murder weapon described by witnesses had really been as implausible as “Revisionists” claim, this would only mean that the murder weapon was another – a gasoline engine burning diesel fuel or gasoline instead of a diesel engine, for instance – and that the witnesses were mistaken. Big deal. If “Revisionists” could provide plausible answers, backed up by evidence, to questions such as addressed in my post # 1358 (1/25/02 10:36:23 pm) on the threadfor inconvenient history--like whether a murder weapon could have worked or not.
Eyewitness Testimony
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =1&stop=20
of the old forum, they might have a point. Their hollow haggling about murder weapons, on the other hand, is inconvenient to no one other than themselves.
… and the “Revisionist” approach to it is this one:The Truth is out there...
Unless of course my friend is referring to this kind of “Truth”: