Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Yeah there was Sushi........whatistruth.......but I can't remember the grand Puba's name.

Balls on! Can't believe you had copies of his posts.

   

Bumpity....

Regina: Google has a few cached. I simply googled "Herr Milan forum" selected the cache instead of the current link. You get to see at least the first page of many of the threads.

BTW some of your replies have been saved too.

   

Really??!! I'll have to give that a go.

   

That's cool..........I didn't know you could do that.

   

I obviously wasn't a member, but you can still find M1 and Dayseed's "Comment Corner" in the caches... pretty funny stuff.

   

I don't care for the Nazis and why they challenge history, but I do not want them silenced.

I also have major issues with Communists, socialists, muslims and etc. and I don't want them silenced either.

And for the same reasons.

Even IceOwl will once in a while come up with something that I find enlightening and if I silenced him even though he royally pisses me off I'd be the lesser for it.

Same with the revisionist-deniers. They say and point things out that make you have to argue against them and in doing so, you sometimes find out that they are right on selected points while utterly wrong on the overall argument. And gathering your facts to argue against them makes you, well, gather your facts. Learning something never hurts regardless of why you're learning about something.

Regardless of the source, I'd rather know the truth than to believe a falsehood.

But besides my semantic points (like them or not), silencing *anyone* is far more upsetting and dangerous to me than whatever it is that's being said.

   

Their base of truth is usually a home made web site with a link to some neo nazis fan club. I have no problem questioning history either, but when they reject eye witness accounts and researched history in favour of web sites............I gotta call bullshit on them.

   

It was funny. Check out the Genetic Modified thread they were involved in on that forum. It's was the History Television forum but it's been shut down for a year now.

   

I’m not for silencing them either, but that doesn’t mean I’ll grant their ahisotrical mush legitimacy by granting them an audience (or suggest that their “work” is methodologically sound). Irving and his ilk (like Zundel, Rassinier, Butz, etc) aren’t interested in scholarly historical work – they want to push a contemporary agenda.

   

I liked the Comment Corner too. Some award recipients even came on to accept their honours. Good times. Good times.

   

I couldn’t agree more.

   

"Revisionist" should not always be applied to Nazis.

Robert Ballard is a revisionist.

The British had two historical "facts" that they took major exception to Ballard's questioning:

1) Eyewitnesses said the Titanic broke in two when it sank. Ballard agreed and was soundly denounced for his 'ridiculous' idea by British historians.

And then he took the pictures that proved the point.

We all accept this as a truth now, but up until 1985 this was idea was openly ridiculed.



2) The Germans said the Lusitania was shipping munitions and was a legitimate target as a munitions shiip. The British for so many years called this a vile lie.

Ballard brought back pictures of shell casings, fuses, and small munitions when he dived the wreck.

Again, an unpopular truth, but a truth.

If the British government could've silenced Ballard it would have.

Would that really be better than knowing the truth?

   

There’s a major difference between “revisionism” and using facts/empirical evidence (and adherence to accepted methods of the historical inquiry model) to readdress an issue in the historical record(Actually, colleague sent an email/link that suggests Ballard never arrived at a solid conclusion – the sign of serious professional. This is not analogous to Holocaust revisionism).

No one is suggesting that history can’t change or alter as evidence presents itself (there are numerous instances where this occurred – see WWI studies, Rebellions of 1837, and especially Ancient history) and no one (believe me, I know this) is seriously questioning the rigidity and obstinate mindset of the established academic community, but how exactly does this relate to Irving? Or Zundel? Or Rassinier? I hope you aren’t trying to force a parallel between legitimate alterations and Holocaust revisionism. Because, realistically, there’s a world of difference between Fernand Ouellet (French-Canadian history) and David Irving.

   

Bump...

   

Bump this baby for the Romanian fascist, Vlad the Impaler!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next