Scott Smith wrote:It took me over two years to drag Roberto to the logical position that the diesel gaschambers must have been diesel generators for camp power and that if engines were really used for execution they must have been gasoline motors instead. A simple point but one that was resisted with all fours.
I would have been in a mood to leave poor beaten Smith alone today if it were not for the above collection of misrepresentations and filthy lies involving myself.
As Smith well knows, our lengthy and boring discussions about diesel engines would never have taken place if Smith had simply said "I don’t think it was diesel engines, it must have been gasoline engines". Don't know, maybe so, doesn't matter, would have been my answer. End of discussion.
This was not Smith’s position, of course.
Without even having demonstrated a convergence of evidence on the description of gassing engines as diesel engines in regard to any of the extermination camps in question, Smith started howling around that the engines had been universally assumed to be diesel engines and that, as according to his "technical assessment" diesel engines would have been an impracticable or unpractical method, the whole "story" must be a "hoax". Smith will recall statements of his such as "if they had been serious about killing, they would have used gasoline engines".
The aversion I have towards propagandistic nonsense thus prompted me to challenge Smith’s denial of large-scale mass murder (for his contentions, however much he would like to make believe otherwise, amounted to nothing else) in several ways.
One was to contest his "technical arguments". Contrary to what he would badly like to make believe, he still hasn’t convinced me that diesel engines would have been an impracticable or unpractical killing method, for there are questions of mine, some of which are inspired by the considerations of his "Revisionist" peer Richard Miller, that he never managed to answer satisfactorily. It takes a lot of wishful thinking to assume that I have accepted the alleged implausibility of a killing method because I often point out that such implausibility would, under the circumstances, merely mean that another killing method was applied.
My other approach was to ask Smith to demonstrate the relevance of his "technical" contentions, to explain why the implausibility of gassing with diesel exhaust he proclaimed would mean that no massive homicidal gassing occurred at all at places like Treblinka, and not merely that gasoline engines rather than diesel engines were used . I confronted Smith with documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence showing that, whatever the exact details of the method applied, the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people at each of the Aktion Reinhard(t)
camps was a fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I asked him a number of questions about this evidence, which he usually avoided and occasionally attempted to answer when pressed too hard, without ever being able to produce anything other than lame platitudes which only made the fallacy of his assertions come through more clearly. I thus demonstrated that, even if correct from a technical point of view, Smith’s arguments against the plausibility of diesel engines having been used for gassing are perfectly irrelevant.
Faced with the shambles of his persistent and arrogant attempts to throw sand into people’s eyes, Smith now lamely tries to get even by proclaiming untruths as transparent as they are insulting about his own and my approach and the contents of our discussions. Needless to say, the only thing he achieves thereby is to convey the impression that his character level is somewhere between that of a rat and that of a worm ("Worms are nicer" was a remark once made by a fellow poster in regard to individuals like Smith). The fact that his lies can easily be exposed as such also makes his Smith’s intelligence seem somewhat questionable.
Scott Smith wrote:I don't understand your point. Revisionist sites are suspect and are now banned for reference it seems unless Roberto links to them.
Again poor Smith feels compelled to mention my humble person, leading me to suspect that he must be pathetically obsessed with me to the point of my appearing in his nightmares. As Smith well knows, when I link to "Revisionist" sites I do so in the context of demonstrating the falsity and absurdity of their contents or showing how some "Revisionist scholar" royally shot himself or his peers in the foot. Smith, on the other hand, uses that rubbish as a reference, as if it contained evidence and wisdom. Needless to say, I’m opposed to such references, however inadequate, being banned by our moderators. The more thereof Smith submits to the dissecting knife of critical scrutiny, the better. More sophisticated "Revisionists" like Michael Mills know better than to flush their credibility down the toilet by using such references, but if Smith is dumb enough not to realize that the same harm rather than support his arguments, our moderators should let that be his problem.
The ensuing nonsense doesn’t concern me personally, but as I’m at it I’ll comment thereon nevertheless.
Scott Smith wrote: Nizkor remains Kosher and has all the answers.
Contrary to what Smith tries to suggest with this often-uttered silly phrase of his, nobody holds that Nizkor, or any other site documenting historical events, "has all the answers". What makes Nizkor and similar sites interesting is that, unlike the filthy propaganda sites Smith spends so much time on, they show evidence – primary or acknowledged secondary sources – and let it speak for itself, without twisting and distorting it the way Smith’s cherished "Revisionists" do. They also show the arguments of "Revisionist" propagandists for their audience to read and evaluate, whereas "Revisionist" sites seem to be reluctant to cross-link to Nizkor lest their gullible audience discover what they are not being told by "Revisionist scholars". And whereas "Revisionist" sites are bent on denying the occurrence of mass murder, defaming the victims and whitewashing the killers in order to promote their pro-Nazi and/or anti-Semitic views, what Nizkor et al intend to do is to counter hateful propaganda with information about the facts. So the only thing Smith’s statement reveals is that, as hardly a reader will probably have failed to recognize by now, he is a supporter of the ideologically motivated hate speech inappropriately named "Revisionism", who feels his articles of faith and his attempts to hammer them into other people’s head threatened by the facts.
Scott Smith wrote:
I don't want either Hannover or Nizkor telling me what history is Kosher.
Smith is known for his disgusting hypocrisy, of which the above, given Smith’s obvious preference for filth merchants like "Hannover", is a showpiece. By placing a sewer of ideologically motivated propaganda lies and a site dedicated to providing historical documentation at the same level, Smith also reveals what he considers history to be. History, for Smith, consists not of evidence, but of "points of view". Whatever supports his "points of view", however absurd, however unsupported by or at odds with evidence, is history for Mr. Smith. And whatever contradicts them, however reasonable and however strongly supported by evidence, is not.