The record collection is incomplete and as far as I know what is available has never been authenticated by electronic engineers.
The Reverend is again getting smarter by the hour. Not only were there no “electronic engineers” back in 1945,
And Roberto’s nonsense is getting dumber, it seems.
Better thread lightly, Reverend. I may be wrong, but unlike you I never write nonsense, let alone dumb nonsense.
Electronic engineers have existed since 1906 with the invention of the vacuum tube; before that there were electrical engineers.
That’s good to know. Since when could they verify the authenticity of tape recordings by electronic means, oh Great Technician?
Our legal ostrich probably cannot even remember vacuum tubes.
I’m neither a technician nor an ostrich. I leave both to the Reverend.
But I never said anything about the IMT authenticating the recordings.
That seems to answer my previous question.
It seems rather simple for the National Archives to do so today by comparing Himmler’s voice with all other known recordings of Himmler’s voice, including newsreel film.
From what I remember having read in a post by Charles Bunch, that’s exactly what they’re doing these days – even though there is no need to do so, as there is no reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the recordings.
there are also other ways of verifying the authenticity of a recording if it is in doubt, for which there was no reason in the case of Himmler’s speeches considering the coincidence of the recordings with various written records and the place or places where these collections had been found.
The only thing “coincident” about all of this is that a partial recording miraculously showed-up, as if to anonymously Bear-Witness to posterity, and that this was highly-convenient for the prosecution’s SHOW in some of the later trials.
I don’t see the rambling poet telling us anything. A partial recording found at the office of a Nazi big-wig together with written records coinciding with the tape-recorded passages – what more do you need? The partiality is likely to have been due to the fact that it took more than one carrier to record a three-hour speech and that the carriers containing the rest of it were not found, rather than to sinister doings of the kind the conspiracy-minded True Believer is hinting at.
One of these methods is interrogating people who were present at the speeches and/or are familiar with the voice of the speaker, as were SS officers Berger and Pohl, both of whom, as the Reverend himself told us, confirmed the authenticity of the recordings.
No, they equivocated and they were under the gun themselves, which makes anything they say suspect.
Ach so, when there were witnesses, they were lying. What reason would they have had to lie in such a way as to incriminate themselves, Reverend? And how about letting us have the transcriptions of their depositions so that we may assess their reliability for ourselves instead of having to rely on the Reverend’s rather dubious word?
By the way, is there a chance that the Reverend will have the courtesy of providing a comprehensive quote of the statements of these two gentlemen for the benefit of our audience, or does he expect those interested to run to the library themselves?
No, Homey don’t play that game no more.
Looks like the interrogation protocols contain something the Reverend doesn’t want our audience to see …
You blew your chance at that courtesy when you accused me of holding out on you—I believe the word was LIAR—when I was still waiting for documents myself.
It may have hurt, but I don’t think I was wrong. And while I can understand your being raving mad at me, how about thinking of our readers who may also want to see the text of those depositions and in whose eyes you will not exactly gain credibility by withholding it?
Not everything is accessible instantly, contrary to the expectations of the MTV generation.
The generation to which the Reverend counts himself seems to think little of the old fashioned debating principle that he who makes an assertion must provide backup for it upon request, however long and however much trouble it takes, lest he wants to be considered a charlatan.
I waited a long time to get the Krasnodar/Kharkov documentation, for example, not all of which has arrived even now, when my argument could have used the information directly.
I don’t see your argument having greatly benefited from the information. On the contrary, you cleverly managed to show our audience that those Soviet “show trials” were not as bad as you would like them to have been.
Anyway, I won’t be sending you anything and you have sent me not one thing.
I think you’re not getting the picture, Reverend. I’m not asking any favors of you. I’m just reminding you of what is your encumbrance if you want to retain a semblance of credibility on this forum.
It is hearsay that would not be admissible in any court of law and as a lawyer you know that.
I guess the Reverend needs a little briefing on the meaning of “hearsay”. The term designates someone’s perception of what someone else said.
It is not admissible as evidence to the facts recalled by the original source, but it is admissible in regard to the fact that the original source said certain things in a certain way. Which is what we are talking about here.
That seems to be in dispute as well.
Why, Reverend? Berger and Pohl stated that they recognized the voice as being Himmler’s, didn’t they? And the recording also seems to have coincided with Himmler’s handwritten records and the transcriptions thereof, including the ones in specially big types for the far-sighted Führer to read.
About all we know for sure is that there was a meeting of the Gruppenführers and that Himmler gave a three-hour speech, which was so unremarkable that nobody could remember what was said.
Well, Berger seems to have said that he didn’t remember anything having been said about the Jews, which I would also have done in his situation. A rather irrelevant objection in the face of the contents of the recording and the typed transcriptions thereof as well as Himmler’s handwritten notes. As to the honesty of Berger’s objection, I will give him the benefit of assuming that he was dozing when, about two hours into the speech, Himmler addressed the “Jewish question”.
Eventual doubts about the authenticity of a tape recording used to be overcome by interrogating witnesses who were present when the recorded statements were made and/or familiar with the voice of the speaker,
Let’s see that analysis, then.
Exactly, Reverend. Show us Berger’s and Pohl’s depositions, which are what my quoted passage was referring to.
There was none because the Nuremberg courts just recognized what they wanted to.
In case you haven’t noticed, Reverend, you’re contradicting yourself. Didn’t you tell us yourself that Berger and Pohl were interrogated about the tape recording of Himmler’s speech on 4 October 1943?
Honest historians need a more critical eye.
… than Smith, one of the most dishonest historians I have ever run across, has when it comes to his Articles of Faith.
a method that can nowadays be complemented or replaced by voice print analysis. Which leads us back to Yale Edeiken’s offer to David Michael to have such a voice print analysis performed in regard to the recording of Himmler’s speech of 4 October 1943
I have no objection to further technical analysis.
That’s great. Then please contact Yale Edeiken and tell him that you accept the proposal that David Michael ran away from.
You seem to think that Revisionists are some monolithic party-faithful or something.
I have seen nothing so far that would lead me to conclude anything else. But I’m looking forward to Reverend Smith showing us that he’s a more daring “Revisionist” than Michael by having the tape recording assessed by a voice print analyst, as proposed by Yale Edeiken.
The curators and librarians at the National Archives should do it with their professional reputations on the line.
Why, are the reputations of those curators and librarians on the line because a bunch of wolf-crying ideologically blind morons come along with unsubstantiated accusations that they are hoarding a forgery? If there were any serious doubts, it would be a different story.
Nobody is going to believe any electronic Leuchter Report anyway, or particularly not another rogue study conducted by some cipher at a government agency like the "JPL photoenhancement" of Birkenau showing “people marching to the gaschambers.”
“Nobody” is something of an exaggeration. The “Revisionist” hoaxers, who systematically dismiss as “forgery” anything that doesn’t fit into their bubble and they can’t explain away, on grounds of nothing else than it’s not fitting into their bubble and their being unable to explain it away
, cannot be so out of touch with reality as to think they are speaking for all mankind. Or can they?
Oh, but of course, Nuremberg had no rules-of-evidence.
Many judicial systems in the world, especially in continental Europe, do very nicely without such rules.
Yes, and I’m not impressed with your Thoughtcrimes laws either.
I don’t see what one thing could possibly have to do with the other, and I neither understand how someone can be so paranoid as to give some misguided laws against extremist hate speech an Orwellian dimension.
For the historian who uses trials to determine historical fact the notion is doubly absurd.
Why so, buddy? Criminal justice and historiography have different objectives, for sure, but the former can be very useful to the latter, especially as criminal justice has means of finding and assessing evidence at its disposal which are not available to historians. I’d say the historian who bluntly shuns the findings of criminal justice is taking a very unprofessional approach, to put it so as not to offend.
They can admit anything, real or fake, that they want.
No, it means that the court may “admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value” (Article 19 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal) without being bound to technical rules of admission. Whether that evidence is considered conclusive or whether it is dismissed due to doubts about its authenticity or for other reasons is for the court to decide after such admission.
“Probative value” in this case means what is wanted by the Prosecution.
No, Mister. It is what the court deemed to have probative value. Prosecution and defense could pronounce themselves about the court’s decision, but it was the court which had the last word.
The Defense didn’t have an army to smash-and-grab through Europe looking for documents of probative value to its case.
The defense usually has less means at its disposal than the prosecution. But as in every proper trial, it was entitled to receive copies of all documents produced by the defense, to examine and to challenge them, to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses and to present documents or call witnesses on behalf of the defendants. The number of defense witnesses actually exceeded by far the number of witnesses for the prosecution, and the time the defense was granted to make its case exceeded the time taken in court by the prosecution.
And the defense were all German citizens at the mercy of the Allied occupational government.
Hollow bunk. The defense were some of the most distinguished German lawyers, some of whom, if I well remember, gave the prosecution a lot of trouble without any of them suffering any disadvantages due to it.
Being useful for the prosecution doesn't make it genuine, however.
Being inconvenient for the defense doesn’t make it a fake, I would say. A substantiated challenge of the authenticity of the document by the defense is required, which is rather difficult to bring about where, as in this case, the prosecution can account for the origin of the document, has verified its consistency with other records and even interrogated witnesses about its authenticity.
Bored by your own bullshit, Reverend?
Kaltenbrunner denied the authenticity of many documents waved in front of him supposedly bearing his signature.
Just what I would have expected of the yellow butcher trembling for his miserable life.
When he asked to read them the court said NO.
Did it? On what grounds? How did Kaltenbrunner’s attorney react? How was the authenticity of the documents challenged by Kaltenbrunner established? Could it be that his objections were so obviously puny attempts at protecting himself that the court didn’t consider them relevant, and that Kaltenbrunner’s attorney recognized this as well and refrained from making a fool of himself?
Whether the accused were guilty or not the prosecution were definitely legal bottom-feeders, particularly Jackson.
Sure. I guess that’s why most of the defendants were acquitted of all charges against them that could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt and some were acquitted entirely.
A Furiously-Backpedaling MedoMan wrote:
Grow up, buddy.
Did you listen to the recording? If so, did you understand anything of what the Reichsführer said?
Yes, and in the audio link that I posted, I heard the word “Ausrottung,” which we are disputing the meaning of,
Why, was that all you understood?
and its perception before a sleepy audience of Gruppenführers.
Which was the following, I presume:
[1:27] Ich meine die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes. Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. [quickly] "Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet", sagt Ihnen jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm drin, Aus...schaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir, pfah!, Kleinigkeit". [less quickly] Und dann kommen sie alle, alle die braven 80 Millionen Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen anständigen Juden. [mockingly] Sagt: alle anderen sind Schweine, und hier ist ein prima Jude. [a few people laugh] Und ... [audience cough] [carefully] ... zugesehen, es durchgestanden hat keiner. Von Euch werden die meisten wissen, was es heisst, wenn 100 Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn 500 daliegen oder wenn 1000 daliegen. Und ... dies ... durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei - abgesehen von menschlichen Ausnahmeschwächen - anständig geblieben zu sein, hat uns hart gemacht und ist ein niemals genanntes und niemals zu nennendes Ruhmesblatt, denn wir wissen, wie schwer wir uns täten, wenn wir heute noch in jeder Stadt bei den Bombenangriffen, bei den Lasten des Krieges und bei den Entbehrungen, wenn wir da noch die Juden als geheime Saboteure, Agitatoren und Hetzer hätten. Wir würden wahrscheinlich in das Stadium des Jahres 16/17 jetzt gekommen sein, wenn die Juden noch im deutschen Volkskörper sässen.
Source of quote: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/him ... izkor.html
[1:27] I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. [quickly] "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter". [less quickly] And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. [mockingly] They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew. [a few people laugh] And ... [audience cough] [carefully] ... none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 are there or when there are 1000. And ... to have seen this through and -- with the exception of human weakness -- to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned. Because we know how difficult things would be, if today in every city during the bomb attacks, the burdens of war and the privations, we still had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and instigators. We would probably be at the same stage as 16/17, if the Jews still resided in the body of the German people.
Source of quote: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/him ... izkor.html
If you understood anything differently, please let us know.
It sounds like typical bureaucratic rhetoric to me.
How about cleaning the ideological wax out of your ears and minding the words of the speaker and the context and occasion in which the statements in question were made?
You act like you’ve never heard bellicose rhetoric before, which was standard practice of the Nazis from their boisterous Beerhall revolutionary days.
I have heard and read such rhetoric. But this was none of it.
I’ve heard worse rhetoric in the Army myself,
Really? The extermination of what people, men, women and children, was your commander talking about? And what heaps of 100, 500 or 1,000 dead bodies lying together did he refer to?
and I’m sure that the Gruppenführers hardly batted an eyelash.
So am I. After all, they were insiders who had witnessed or performed a lot of killing, as Himmler took care to point out:
And ... [audience cough] [carefully] ... none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 are there or when there are 1000. And ... to have seen this through and -- with the exception of human weakness -- to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned.
That was Berger, right?
Where you love smoking-guns I ask questions as to why diesel exhaust and murder-vans can't work as claimed.
Translation: Where I follow the relevant evidence where it leads, the Reverend makes a big bloody fuss about the utterly irrelevant question whether the gassing engines at Treblinka and in some of the gas vans were or not diesel engines.
Yeah, I made a bloody fuss out of proving that the Soviets lied about Gas-Vans and that Fleming and Yad Vashem did not do their homework on their smoking-gun picture of one.
Exactly, Reverend. Even if the Soviets had been wrong about the type of engine, this would not mean that they lied about the gas vans, considering the evidence. As to Fleming and Yad Vashem, serious and competent historians and institutions that they are, they don’t consider it their job to dig into something as irrelevant as the exact specifics of a murder weapon. They may have made mistakes in regard to unimportant minor details (something the Reverend still has to demonstrate), but then nobody is perfect – except maybe for the Reverend, who independently of the evidence seems to be omniscient as to what happened and what did not.
The Allied prosecution, which has a strong investment in Axis culpability, supplies all the evidence. Yes, I think there is something wrong with that.
Only to the extent you can demonstrate that they tampered with the evidence in question, which was neither necessary nor in their interest.
We don’t know that it is really Himmler.
Oh yes we do. The recordings coincide with the notes and transcriptions, and Pohl and Berger expressly confirmed that the voice was Himmler’s. What indications does the Reverend have that it was not? None at all, I dare say.
We don’t know if anything relevant has been left out since much of it is “lost.”
What that may have been “left out” would have given the above quoted passages a different meaning, Reverend? Your statement suggests that you didn’t read the translation of the whole speech of 4 October 1943, prepared by your fellow True Believer Carlos Porter, by the way. How about paying a little more attention to what your peers write?
We don’t know the chain of evidence.
Apart from there being no imaginable “chain of evidence” that would give Himmler’s statements about the Jewish question a different meaning, we actually do know the "chain". Once again, have a look at Carlos Porter’s somewhat dishonest but obviously complete translation.
I might as well send a tape of my best impression of actor Robert Blake hiring a hitman to murder his wife.
And there would also be coincident handwritten notes and transcriptions incidentally found with an authority that would be expected to keep such things, and two people present when the statement was made identifyng the voice of the speaker, right? Try to achieve that with a voice imitator, Reverend, and keep us informed of the results. By the way “I might as well” or “it could have been” are irrelevant arguments. You have to provide evidence that it “was” or has a good chance of having been if you want to get anywhere.
Of course, Blake was not a Nazi and he did not lose a war...
Losing a war is to criminals at state level what getting caught is to common criminals.
For all supposed “strong investment in Axis culpability”, they carefully assessed every defendant’s individual guilt and acquitted every one of such charges regarding which his guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Far from being out to demonstrate Axis culpability no matter what, they were committed to giving the defendants a fair trial:
Sounds rather desperate. Is there anything you can demonstrate, or are you just letting off steam?
Gilded codex crap.
As above. Two “craps” in three short sentences, wow. Rage is getting the better of the Reverend’s linguistic elegance.
The Allies at Nuremberg had one goal and that was to make the defeated enemy regime look worse than their Soviet Allies,
Another Article of Faith with nothing but thin air and wishful thinking behind it. Or can you show us anything supporting your statement, Reverend?
and thereby justifying their own excesses and their barbaric Unconditional Surrender policy.
As above. I like the word “barbaric” for what it reveals about the mind of Reverend Smith. He calls a comparatively less harmful policy what he would never call the Nazis’ mass murder of millions of unarmed non-combatants – “barbaric”.
Only the Judeocentric would think the Nazis worse than any other regime, particularly the Communists, because the Nazis were anti-Semitic, of course.
Probably so. But the Reverend is crashing into open doors. Did I ever say that I consider Adolf to have been worse than Stalin or Mao? They were birds of a feather, as far as I’m concerned.
And crimes against Jews, according to this worldview, trump all others.
A rather deviated worldview, especially considering that the overwhelming majority of the victims of Nazi genocide and mass murder were Slavs, not Jews. But who is embracing it? What is more, Reverend: Who would be talking about the Nazis' crimes against the Jews on this forum if it were not for hoaxers like yourself? I only discuss it because I consider the denial of mass murder to be obscene bullshit, and I’m sure that applies to a great many of our more reasonable fellow posters.
Tell me, Roberto, can you trace your family tree to the Scholl family?
I wouldn't mind if I could, but I’m proud enough of the family I have.
I mean, that is what Germans do nowadays, isn't it?
In the minds of IHR/Codoh - educated morons who don’t know a damn thing about Germany, perhaps.
And that is what religious cults do.
What religious cults do is to blindly adhere to a Faith no matter to what extent it is at odds with the facts. The attitude of the “Revisionists”, in other words.
Any anti-Nazi prophets and martyrs in your woodpile?
No, but an honorable German infantryman that I have proudly told this forum about. See the threads
Interesting Revisionist Workhttp://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =166.topic
A German soldierhttp://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumth ... 3772.topic
of the old forum.
The Reverend’s dreams are getting wilder by the hour. Why, he hasn’t even demonstrated that the engines of the gas vans are assumed to have been diesel engines (remember the depositions of Burmeister, Piller and Levinbuck that I quoted and translated, Reverend?),
An Ostrich buries its head in the sand to avoid seeing what it doesn’t want to see, which is obviously the attitude of the Reverend, not mine. Which in turn means that this insult isn’t exactly a very smart one, my friend. Just a piece of well-meaning advice.
forgets that I work on one project at a time and I never said I was competed.
Well, at this pace I doubt it ever will. The Reverend has been intensively and futilely boring the audience of this forum with his diesel nonsense for over a year, after all, without making any progress.
I have examined the Soviet claims and the Fleming van. Both irrefutably diesel engines.
Which would mean that they made a mistake about an irrelevant minor detail at worst and that the Reverend has been lying all this time at best.
that diesel engines would have been an inadequate killing method
The Pattle experiments show this as Medo would admit if he were intellectually honest.
I think Smith is the last one on this forum who should lecture anyone about intellectual honesty, considering i.a. how stubbornly he fails to acknowledge that the Pattle experiments disprove his “load” baloney and that a method which failed to produce lethal exhaust with a tiny 6 bhp engine may very well have resulted in highly lethal exhaust with a huge engine.
And the Holtz experiments show that CO was not the culprit
On the contrary. Together with the Pattle experiments, they show that CO could well have been the culprit, independently of a load, if the fuel supply was increased and/or the air intake restricted. Assuming that the engine in question was a diesel engine, that is.
which puts the Soviet autopsy report—if you can call it that—into question.
Which at worst meant that the engine of the gas van was actually a gasoline engine and that the findings which concluded on a diesel engine – not the autopsy report – were wrong in regard to this irrelevant minor detail.
or that, if they had been, this would mean anything other than that the engines in question were actually gasoline engines and the witnesses or those who assessed their statements were mistaken.
That remains a possibility.
Wow, a flicker of reason ….
We shall see, as I tick off one claim after another.
… which as usual goes out soon afterwards. I haven’t yet seen the Reverend “tick off” anything, and I don’t expect this to be the first time.
And when/if there are none left, then what, Mr. Believer?
That’s exactly the question the Reverend would be asking himself right now, if he were not so far removed from reality.
Of course, if the claims are gasoline engines
Not the “claims”, brother. The evidence.
it only means that I cannot easily disprove them—not that they are real.
Of course, three witnesses whose depositions at different times and places coincided in this and many other details, and the overall accuracy of which is corroborated by further evidence, may theoretically have lied. But it a rather thin possibility, don’t you think so, Reverend? Also one that is up to you to demonstrate.
His understandable frustration at not being able to sell his herrings becomes apparent in desperate tirades like the one quoted above.
The space you devote to me instead of “more serious Revisionists” belies your own doubt
No. It shows that most of the “more serious Revisionists” don’t have the balls to show up on this forum.
—literally thousands of words, over a year intensely trying to prove the diesel story TRUE when all you had
to do is say.
It seems you’re again turning the picture upside down, Reverend. Disproving the use of diesel engines was and is your baby, and for all your intensive attempts you haven’t succeeded. I just grant myself the amusement of asking critical questions about the Reverend’s baloney.
I think you may be right, Scott; the witnesses were probably just mistaken about the diesels and it was actually just gasoline engines after all.
Thanks for admitting to the utter irrelevance of your contentions, Reverend.
If the Holocaust story relied upon flying-nuns to carry itself, Medorjurgen would be a Believer in flying-nuns.
No, Mr. Baloney. I would say that it can’t have been flying nuns who killed all those people who disappeared from the face of the earth. Even if the murder weapons concluded upon had been totally preposterous – which they are not, however desperately the Reverend tries to make them look that way - , I wouldn’t let the preachers of the hook until they had plausibly accounted otherwise for the fate of all those people and provided conclusive evidence to support their contentions
That is obvious to everyone but the thickest.
Boy, this forum seems to be full of “thick” people. Everyone other than the “Revisionist” bullshit priests, as a matter of fact.
One day I'll become a cremation expert and we'll see how well your 54 muffles hold out.
One day I’ll be big and strong and beat the shit out of you, my younger brothers used to say when we were kids. Smith is once again exposing his infantile mind.
Careful, you will pop a gasket and that will be no fun at all.
Is that supposed to be a threat, Reverend?
I’m sure the Big-H isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Proven historical facts usually don’t go anywhere.
You, however, have yet to admit that there is anything that you do not know.
That was never my problem, but it seems to be yours. Why, I only follow the evidence where it leads, whereas the Reverend seems to know that what doesn’t fit into his ideological bubble never happened, regardless of the evidence.
I think a thousand cremations a day is generous.
Is there anything wrong with my calculations, Reverend?
The Reverend is boring indeed. Fortunately I’ve learned to be patient.
Like I said, a thousand corpses per day is a mighty generous figure (and the real number is probably half that).
If I ask you to show me what is wrong with my calculations, I don’t consider “I said they are wrong” to be a constructive answer.
Medo has no technical knowledge sufficient to light a ballpark with a diesel engine let alone dabble in cremation physics.
And hollow insults don’t make it any better. Instead of that good old quack rambling about the technical ignorance of a layman who has seen through your quackery, how about explaining what you think is wrong with my reasoning about the cremation capacity?
He thinks he knows but he is clueless.
No, buddy. I observe and think. Something the Reverend should learn to do.
He knows what others tell him—if he agrees, that is.
If it makes sense to me, Reverend. The “others”, in this case, are a source often invoked by “Revisionists” – the British Cremation Society – and the reasoning is my own.
He knows what he can cut-and-paste from online sources that he agrees with.
Wrong again. I know what becomes apparent to me from the results of serious research featured on and off the web, and what my own common sense tells me. How about trying to match this instead of pouring out all that hollow frustrated bitching, Reverend?
The Truth is rather boring, isn’t it? What you call Truth, that is.
But, no need for him to foam…
Foaming is what the Reverend has obviously been doing throughout this furious screed of his. I hope the carpets at his place didn’t suffer too much. Let’s have some more enraged True Believer imbecility, Reverend. The more you foam the more I enjoy myself, as you well know.